

•o '♦.To' ^0*^ V**^ 







V.i 













.0^ 



•A . . . •/* 



A> « ■ a 'O* 




•*0' 



%*?^*6** *o.-.,^.'<V* %'^^'\<?^ \^-f>X' 

/ -'^^ *--/ .•^''. "W"' •»'•' \/ .-^^ 












^^0^ 



»o 






.*^' -^ 












''bv^ 






^of 



-■\/\, V^^V^ "v^'^V^ V^^'V^' ''"''"' 








^9^ 









o_ * 






SPEECH 



OF 



HON. AIRCREW JOHNSON, 

I' 

OF TENNESSEE, 






ON THE 



STATE or THE UNION 



DELIVERED 



IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, FEBRUARY 5 AND 6, 1861. 



WASHINGTON: 

PRINTED AT THE CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE OFFICE. 

1861. 



£446 



SPEECH. 



The Senate liaving under consideration the message of 
the President communicating resolutions of the Legisla- 
ture of Virginia — 

Mr. JOHNSON, of Tennessee. Mr. Presiaent, 
on the 19th of December, I made a speech in the 
Senate, with reference to the present crisis, which 
I believed my duty to my State and to myself i 
required. In making that speech, my intention — \ 
and I think I succeeded in it — was to place my- 
self upon the principles of the Constitution and I 
the doctrines inculcated by Washington, Jeffer- , 
son, Madison, Monroe, and Jackson. Havings 
examined the positions of those distinguished j 
fathers of the Republic, and compared them with 
the Constitution, I came to the conclusion that 
they were right; and upon them I planted myself, 
and made the speech to which I have referred, in 
vindication of the Union and the Constitution, 
and against the doctrine of nullification or seces- 
sion , which I look upon as a great political heresy. 
As far back as 1833, when I was a young man, 
before I made my advent into public life, when 
the controversy arose between the Federal Gov- 
ernment and the State of South Carolina, and it 
became necessary for Andrew Jackson , then Pres- 
ident of the United States, to issue his proclama- 
tion, exhorting that people to obey the law and 
comply with the requirements of the Constitu- 
tion, I planted myself upon the principles then 
announced by him, which I advocated on the 19th 
of December last. I believed that the positions 
taken then by General Jackson, and those who 
came to his support, were the true doctrines of the 
Constitution, and the only doctrines upon which 
this Government could be preserved. I have been 
uniformly, from that period to the present time, 
opposed to the doctrine of secession, or of nulli- 
fication, which is somewhat of a hermaphrodite, 
but approximates to the doctrine of secession. I 
repeat, that I then viewed it as a heresy and as an 
element which, if maintained, would result in the 
destruction of this Government. I maintain the 
same position to-day. I then opposed the doc- 
trine of secession as a political heresy, which, if 
sanctioned and sustained as a fundamental prin- 
* 



ciple of this Government, will result in its over- 
throw and destruction; for, as we have seen al- 
ready, a few of the States are crumbling and 
falling off. 

I oppose this heresy for another reason; not 
only as being destriuitive of the existing Govern- 
ment, but as being destructive of all future con- 
federacies that may be established in consequence 
of a disruption of the present one; and I availed 
myself of the former occasion on which I spoke, 
to enter my protest against it, and to do some- 
thing to extinguish a political heresy that ought 
never to be incorporated upon this or any other 
Government which may be subsequently estab- 
lished. I look upon it as the prolific mother of 
political sin; as a fundamental error; as a heresy 
that is intolerable in contrast with the existence 
of the Government itself. 1 look upon it as being 
productive of anarchy; and anarchy is the next 
step to despotism. The developments that we 
have recently seen in carrying this doctrine into 
practice, I think, admonish us that this will be the 
result. 

But, Mr. President, since I made that speech 
ou the 19th of December, I have been the peculiar 
object of attack. I have been denounced, because 
I happened to be the first man south of Mason 
and Dixon's line who entered a protest or made 
! an argument in the Senate against this political 
I heresy. From what I saw here on the evening 
when I concluded my speech— although some 
may have thought that it intimidated and discour- 
aged me — I was inspired with confidence; I felt 
that I had struck treason a blow. I thought then, 
and I know now, that men who were engaged in 
treason felt the blows that I dealt out on that 
occasion. As I have been made the peculiar ob- 
ject of attack, not only in the Senate, but out of 
the Senate, my object on this occasion is to meet 
some of these attacks, and to say some things in 
addition to what I then said against this move- 
ment. 

REPLY TO MR. BENJAMIN. 

Yesterday the last of the Senators who repre- 
sent what are called the seceding States, retired, 



and a drama was enacted. The piece \yas well } 
performed; the actors were perfect in their parts; : 
it was got up to order; I will not say that the 
mourning auxiliaries had been selected in advance. 
One of the retiring Senators, in justifying the 
course that his State had taken, made a very spe- 
cious and plausible argument in reference to the ; 
doctrine of secession. I allude to the Senator from 
Louisiana, [Mr. Benjamin.] He argued that the 
sovereignty of that State had never passed to the , 
United States; that the Government held it in 
trust; that no conveyance was made; that sover- 
eignty could not be transferred; that out of the 
gracious pleasure and good will which the First 
Consul of France entertained towards the Amer- 
ican people, the transfer was made of the property 
without consideration, and the sovereignty was 
'dn abeyance or trust, and therefore his State 
had violated no faith, and had a right to do pre- 
cisely what she has done. With elaborate prep- 
aration and seeming sincerity; with sweet tones, 
euphonious utterances, mellifluous voice, andgreat 
earnestness, he called our attention to the treaty 
to sustain his assumption. But when we exam- 
ine the subject, Mr. President, how do the facts 
stand? I like fairness; I will not say that the 
Senator, in making quotations from the treaty and 
commenting upon them, was intentionally unfair; 
nor can I say that the Senator from Louisiana, 



French peop4e, desiring to remove all source of miaunder- 
standing reiative to objects of discussion," &c. 

After reciting the other treaties pending between 
France and the United States and Spain, they go 
on in the first article as follows: 

"And wlieifas, in pursuance of the treaty, and particu- 
larly the tliird article, the French Republic has an incon- 
testable title to the domain and to the posssssion of the said 
territory, [that is, of Louisiana,] the First Consul of the 
French Uepublic, desiring to give to the United States a 
strong proof of his friendship, doth her(!by cede to the said 
United States, in the name of the French Republic, forever 
and in full sovereignty, the said territory, with all its rights 
and appurtenances, as fully and in the same manner as 
they have been acquired by the French Republic, in virtue 
of the above mentioned treaty concluded with his Catholic 
Majesty." 

Which was referred to in the preceding section. 
Now, sir, is there not a clear and distinct and ex- 
plicit conveyance of sovereignty, of property, of 
jurisdiction, of everything that resided in the 
First Consul of France, to the people of the Uni- 
ted Slates? Clearly and distinctly the jurisdiction 
and control of that Government were transmitted 
absolutely by the treaty. Why not have read that 
part of the treaty first? The second article is in 
these words: 

"Art. '2. In the cession made by the preceding article, 
are included the adjacent islands belonging to Louisiana, 
all public lots and squares, vacant lands, and all public 
buildings, fortifications, barracks, and other edifices, which 



with all his acumen, his habits of industry, and 1 are not priv..te property. The archives, papers, and docu- 



his great research, had not read and understood 
all the provisions of the treaty. In doing so, I 
should reflect upon his character; it might be con- 
strued as a reflection upon his want of research, 
for which he has such a distinguished reputation. 
The omission to read important portions of the 
treaty I will not attribute to any intention to mis- 
lead; I will simply call the attention of the Senate 
and the country to his remarks, and then to the 
treaty. The Senator, after premising, went on to 
say: 

" I have said that the GoverMuient assumed to act as 
trustee or guardian of the people of the ceded province, and 
covenanted to transfer to them the sovereignty thus held in 
trust for their use and benefit, as soon as they were capa- 
ble of e.\ercising it. What is the express language of the 
treaty?" 

He then read the third article of the treaty of 
cession of Louisiana, which provides merely for 
their incorporation into the United States; their 
protection in the enjoyment of their religion, &c.; 
and thus he commented on it: 

" And, sir, as if to mark the true nature of the cession 
in a matmer too significant to admit of misconstruction, 
the treaty stipulates no price ; and the sole consideration 
for the conveyance, as stated on its face, is the desire to 
alford a strong proof of the friendship of France for the 
United States. By the terms of a separate convention stip- 
ulating the payment of a sum of money, the precaution is 
again observed of stating that the payment is to be made, 
not as a consideration, or a price, or a condition precedent 
of the cession, but it is carefully distinguished as being a 
consequence of the cession." 

Now, Mr. President, to make this matter more 
intelligible, and better understood by the country, 
it seems to me it would have been better to read 
the first article of the treaty, which commences 
thus: 

" The President of the United States of America, and the 
Fim Consul of the French Kepublic, in the name of the 



ments, relative to the doniainandsovereignty of Louisiana 
and its dependencies, will be left in the possession of the 
commissaries of the United States, and copies will be 
afterwards civen in due form to the magistrates and muni- 
cipal officers of such of the said papers" and documents as 
may be necessary to them." 

We see, then, in the first article, that property 
and sovereignty were all conveyed together, in 
clear and distinct terms. If there was a power 
residing anywhere to control the people and the 
property of Louisiana, it was in the First Consul 
of France, who conveyed absolutely the sover- 
eignty and right of property to the people of the 
United States. Then we come to the third article, 
which the Senator read yesterday: 

" Art. 3. The inhabitants of the ceded territory shall be 
incorporated in the Union of the United States, and ad- 
mitted as soon as possible, according to the principles of 
the Federal Constitution, to the enjoyment of all the rights, 
advantages, and immunities of citizens of the United States; 
and, in the mean time, they shall be maintained and pro- 
tected in the free enjoyment of their liberty, property, and 
the religion which they profess." 

There is some order in that; one thing fits the 
other. There is the conveyance of sovereignty 
and property. There is a minute enumeration in 
the second article; and in the third article it is 
provided that as soon as possible, according to the 
principles of the Federal Constitution, they shall 
be incorporated into the Union, and protected in 
the enjoyment of the religion which they may 
profess. We see, then, how the thing stands. 
Have not all these things been complied with ? But, 
by way of exonerating Louisiana from censure 
for her recent act of attempted secession, it is 
urged that, when this treaty was made, there was 
no consideration; but that, out of the good will 
that the First Consul had towards the American 
people, the sovereignty was given to us in trust; 
that we took the property in trust; that we took 



fore they are excusable and justifiable in going 
out of the Confederacy of these States. 

And then an appeal was made. It was a very 
affecting scene. Louisiana was gone; and what 
was the reason.' Great oppression and great 
wrong. She could not get her rights in the Union , 
and consequently she has sought them out of it. 
Whatarethe wrongs of Louisiana.' What was the 
cause for all the sympathy expressed on the one 
hand , and the tears shed on the other .' Louisiana 
was presented to the country in a most pathetic and 
sympathetic attitude. Her wrongs were without 
number; their enormity was almost without esti- 
mate; they could scarcely be fathomed by human 
sympathy. It was not unlike the oration o.f Mark 
Antony over the dead body of Caesar. Weeping 
friends grouped picturesquely in the foreground; 
the bloody robe, the ghastly wounds, were con- 
jured to the imagination; and who was there that 
did not expect to hear the exclamation: " If you 
have tears, prepare to shed them now.'" [Laugh- 
ter.] 

Sir, what are the great wrongs that have been 
inflicted upon Louisiana.' Prior to 1803, Louis- 
iana was transferred from Spain to France, and 
from France back to Spain — both property and 
sovereignty — almost with the same facility as a 
chattel from one person to another. On the 30th 
of April, 1803, when this treaty was made, what 
was the condition of Louisiana.' It was then a 
What becomes of the specious plea that we took , province of the First Consul of France, subject to 
it simply in trust, and that no consideration was ; i be disposed of at his discretion. The United 
paid.' Turn over to the American State Papers; tl Slates came forward and paid to the First Consul 
look at Mr. Livingston's letters,upon which these jj of France 60,000,000f. for the territory. The treaty 
treaties were predicated; read his correspondence h ^as made; the territory was transferred; and in 
with Mr. Madison, who was Secretary of State, I [ 1806, in express compliance with the treaty, as 
and you will find that France demanded the sum of j ' soon as practicable, according to the terms of the 
100,000,000f. independent of what they owed the , Federal Constitution, Louisiana was admitted into 
citizens of the United States; but after long nego- 1 \ the Union as a State. We bought her; we paid for 



everything in trust. Sir, the Federal Government 
took the property, and the sovereignty with it, in 
trust for all the States. The retiring Senator's 
speech — whether it was intended or not, I do not 
undertake to say — is calculated to make the false 
impression that some time afterwards, perhaps in 
some other treaty remote from that, some money 
was paid by the United States to France, out of 
the good will that this Government had towards 
them. And yet, sir, on the same day — the 30th of 
April, 1803 — on which the other treaty was made 
and signed, the following convention between the 
United States of America and the French Republic 
was made: 

" The President of the United States of America, and the 
First Consul of the French Republic, in the name of the 
French people, in consequence of the treaty of cession of 
Louisiana, which has been sijined this day, wishing to reg- 
ulate definitely everything wliich has relation to tlie said 
cession." 

This, be it observed, was made on the same day, 
and was, perhaps, written out before the other 
treaty was signed. And what does the first article 
say.' It says expressly: 

"Art. 1. Tlie Government of the United States engages 
to pay to tlie French Government, in the manner specified 
in tlie following article, the sum of sixty million francs, 
independent of the sum which shall be fixed by another 
convention for the payment of debts due by France to the 
citizens of the United States." 



tiations, the First Consul of the French concluded 
to take 60,000,000f.; and the first two articles of 
the treaty which I have read are based upon the 
60,000, OOOf. paid by this Government in consid- 
eration of the sovereignty and territory, all of 



her; we admitted her into the Union upon terms of 
equality with the other States. Was there any 
oppression, any great wrong, any grievance in 
that .' 

In 1815 — war havino: been declared in 1812 — 



which was to be held in trust by the United States j ! Louisiana was attacked; the city of New Orleans 
for all the States. ' was about to be sacked and laid prostrate in the 

This was given to us out of the pure good willli dust; " beauty and booty "were the watchwords, 
that Napoleon at that time had towards the Uni- j She was oppressed then, was she not.' Kentucky, 
'"■■■" ■ " ^ ^ ■ I y^^^i^. Q^jj gallant State, sir, (and, thank God ! 



ted States! Sir, he had great hate for Great Brit- 
ain; and by the promptings of that hate he was 
disposed to cede this territory to some other 
Power. He feared that Great Britain, whose 



she is standingerectnow,) and Tennessee, (which, 
as I honestly believe, will ever stand by her side 
in this struggle for the Constitution and the Union,) 



Navy was superior to his own, would take it. He ! ! in conjunction with the other States, met Pack- 
desired to obtain money to carry on his wars and ' enham and his myrmidonsupon the plains of New 
sustain his Government. These considerations, I \ Orleans, and there dealt out death and desolation 
and not love or partiality or friendship for the Uni- jj to her invading foe. What soil did we invade.' 
ted States, led him to make the cession. Then what 1 1 What city did we propose to sack .' Whose prop- 
becomesoftheSenator's special pleading.' From I erty did we propose to destroy.' Was not Lou- 
the Senator's remarks, it may have been concluded ' isiana there gallantly, nobly, bravely, and patri- 
that we got it as a gratuity. But after examining ]' otically defended, by the people of the United 
theStatePapers and the correspondence, and look-|l States, from the inroads and from the sacking of 



ingat the tedious and labored negotiation previous 
to the making of the treaty, it is clear that at the 
time the first treaty was m:ide, on the very same 
day, the consideration was fixed; and yetthe Sen- 



a British foe .' Is that defense one of her oppres- 
sions .' Is that one of the great wrongs that have 
been inflicted upon Louisiana.' 

What more has been done by tliis Govern- 



ators tell us that at some other time a treaty was ' ment.' How much protection has she received 
made not referring to anyamount of money agreed [■ upon hersugar.' In orderto give that protection, 
to be paid at this particular time, and that there- '. the poorest man throughout the United States is 



6 



taxed for every spoonful that he uses to sweeten 
his coffee. How many millions, under the oper- 
ation of a protection upon sugar, have been con- 
tributed to the wealth and prosperity of Louis- 
iana since she has been in this Confederacy? 
Estimate them. Is this another of her wrongs ? 
Is this another of her grievances ? Is this another 
of the oppressions that the United States have in- 
flicted upon Louisiana.' 

Sum them all up, and what are the wrongs, 
"what the grievances which justify Louisiana in 
taking leave of the United States ? We have de- 
fended her soil and her citizens; we have paid the 
price asked for her by the French Government; 
she has been protected in the production of her 
sugar, and in the enjoyment of every right that a 
sovereign State could ask at the hands of the 
Federal Government. And how has she treated 
the United States? What is her position? Upon 
her own volition, without consultation with her 
sister States, without even consulting with Ten- 
nessee and Kentucky, who defended her when 
she was in peril, she proposes to secede from the 
Union. She does more: in violation of the Con- 
stitution of the United States, in despite of the 
plighted faith that exists between all the States, 
she takes our arsenals, our forts, our custom- 
house, our mint, with about a million dollars. 
Gracious God ! to what are we coming ? Is it 
thus that the Constitution of the United States is 
to be violated ? Forts, arsenals, custom-houses, 
and property belonging to all the people of all 
the States, have been ruthlessly seized, and their 
undisturbed possession is the sum total of the 
great wrongs that have been inflicted upon Loui- 
siana by the United States! 

Mr. President, when I look at the conduct of 
some of the States, I am reminded of the fable of 
King Log and the frogs. They got tired of the 
log that lay in their midst, upon which they could 
bask in the sun, or from which they could dive 
to the depth beneath, without interference. And 
these seceding States have got tired of the Fed- 
eral Government, which has been so profitable 
to them, and loathe the blessings which they 
enjoy. Seemingly, its inability to take care of 
itself created their opposition to it. It seems, 
the inability of the United States to defend and 
take care of its own property has been an invita- 
tion to them to take possession of it; and, like 
the frogs, they seek a substitute for their log. 
They prayed to Jupiter, the supreme deity, to 
send them another king; and he answered their 
prayer by sending them a stork, who soon de- 
voured his subject frogs. There are storks, too, 
in the seceding States. South Carolina has her 
stork king, and so has Louisiana. In the heavy 
appropriations they are making to maintain armies, 
and in all their preparations for war, for which 
there is no cause, they will find they have brought 
down storks upon them that will devour them. 

What do we find, Mr. President, since this 
movement commenced? In about forty-six days, 
since the first State went out until the last one dis- 
appeared — the 26th of January — they have taken 
from the United States, thisharmlessold ruler, six- 
teen forts and one thousand and ninety-two guns, 
without any resistance, amounting to $0,513,000. 



They are very much alarmed at the power of this 
Government. Thus the Government oppresses 
them; thus this Government oppresses Louisiana, 
pertinaciously y^ersisting in allowing those States 
to take all the guns, all the forts, all the arsenals, all 
the dock-yards, all the custom-houses, and all the 
mints. Thus they are so cruelly oppressed. Is 
it not a farce? Is it not the greatest outrage and 
the greatest folly that was ever consummated since 
man was spoken into existence ? But these are 
the grievances of Louisiana. I shall say nothing 
against Louisiana. Tennessee and Kentucky have 
given demonstrations most noticeable that when 
she needed friends, when she needed aid, they were 
at her bidding. 

But with Louisiana there was another very im- 
portant acquisition. We acquired the exclusive 
and entire control of the navigation of the Missis- 
sippi river. We find that Louisiana, in her ordi- 
nance of secession , makes the negative declaration 
that she has the control of the navigation of that 
great stream, by stating that the navigation of the 
river shall be free to those States that remain on 
friendly terms with her, with the proviso that mod- 
erate contributions are to be levied to defray such 
expenses as they may deem expedient from time 
to time. That is the substance of it. Sir, look at 
the facts. All the States, through their Federal 
Government, treated for Louisiana. The treaty 
was made. All the States, by the contribution of 
their money, paid for Louisiana and the naviga- 
tion of the Mississippi river. Where, and from 
what source, does Louisiana now derive the power 
or the authority to secede from this Union and set 
up exclusive control of the navigation of that great 
stream which is owned by all the States, which 
was paid for by the money of all the States, and 
upon whose borders the blood of many citizens of 
the States has been shed ? 

This is one of the aggrieved, the oppressed 
States! Mr. President, is it not apparent that 
these grievances and oppressions are mere pre- 
tenses? A large portion of the South (and that 
portion of it I am willing to stand by to the very 
last extremity) believe that aggressions have been 
made upon them by the other States, in reference 
to the institution of slavery. A large portion of 
the South believe that something ought to be done 
in the shape of what has been offered by the dis- 
tinguished Senator from Kentucky, or something 
very similar. They think and feel that that ought 
to be done. But, su-, there is another portion who 
do not care for those propositions to bring about 
reconciliation, but who, on the contrary, have 
been afraid and alarmed that something would be 
done to reconcile and satisfy the public mind, be- 
fore this diabolical work of secession could be 
consummated. Yes, sir, they have been afraid, 
and the occasion has been used to justify and to 
carry into practice a doctrine which will be not 
only the destruction of this Government, but the 
destruction of all other governments that may be 
originated, embracing the same principle. Why 
not, then, meet it like men ? We know there is a 
portion of the South who are for secession, who are 
for breaking up this Government, without regard 
to slavery or anything else, as I shall show before 
I have done. 



The Senator from Louisiana, [Mr. Benjamin,] | 
in a speech that he made some days since, took oc- ] 
casion to allude to some authority that I had intro- j 
duced from General "Washington, the first Presi- 
dent who executed the laws of the United States 
against armed resistance; and it occurred to him 
that, by way of giving his argument force, it was 
necessary to remark that I was not a lawyer, and 
that therefore I had not examined the subject with 
that minuteness and with that care and familiarity 
that I should have done; and hence that I had 
introduced authority which had no application to 
the question under consideration. The proof that 
he gave to show that I had not examined the sub- 
ject carefully, was contained in the very extract 
that I had quoted and which he said declared that 
General Washington had been informed by the 
marshal that he could not execute the laws; and 
from the fact of the marshal being incapable to 
execute them. General Washington was called 
upon to employ the means, under the Constitution 
and the laws, which were necessary to their en- 
forcement. It may have been necessary for the 
distinguished Senator to inform the Senate and 
the country that I was not a lawyer; but it was 
not necessary to inform anybody that read his 
speech and that had the slightest information or 
sagacity, that he was a lawyer, and that he was 
making a lawyer's speech upon the case before 
him; not an argument upon the great principles 
of the Government. The speech was a complete 
lawyer's speech, the authorities were summed up 
simply to make out the case on his side; and he 
left out all those that would disprove his position. 

That Senator yesterday seemed to be very seri- 
ous in regard to the practical operation of the 
doctrine of secession. I felt sorry myself, some- 
what. I am always reluctant to part with a gen- 
tleman with whom I have been associated, and 
nothing had transpired to disturb between us those 
courteous relations which should always exist be- 
tween persons associated on this floor. I thought 
the scene was pretty well got up, and was acted 
out admirably. The plot was executed to the 
very letter. You would have thought that his 
people in Louisiana were borne down and seri- 
ously oppressed by remaining in this Union of 
States. Now, I have an extract before me, from 
a speech delivered by that gentleman since the 
election of Abraham Lincoln, while the distin- 
guished Senator was on the western slope of the 
Rocky Mountains, at the city of San Francisco. 
He was called upon to make an address; and I 
will read an extract from it, which I find in the 
New York Times, the editors of which paper said 
they had the speech before them; and I have con- 
sulted a gentleman here who was in California at 
the time, and he tells me that the report is correct. 
In that speech — after the Senator had spoken some 
time with his accustomed eloquence — he uttered 
this language: 

" Those who prate of, and strive to dissolve this glorious 
Confederacy of States, are like those silly savagi-s who W.t 
fly their arrows at the sun in the vain hope of piercing it ! 
And still the sun rolls on, unheeding, in its eternal path- 
way, shedding light and animation upon all the world." 

Even after Lincoln was elected, the Senator 
from Louisiana is reported to have said, in the 



State of California, and in the city of San Fran- 
cisco, that this gi-eat Union could not be destroyed. 
Those great and intolerable oppressions, of which 
we have since heard from him, did not seem to be 
flitting across liis vision and playing upon his 
mind with that vividness and clearness which 
were displayed here yesterday. He said, in Cal- 
ifornia, that this great Union would go on in its 
course, notwithstanding the puny efforts of the 
silly savages that were letting fly their arrows with 
the prospect of piercing it. What has changed 
the Senator's mind on coming from that side of 
the continent to this? What light has broken in 
upon him ? Has he been struck on his way, like 
Paul, when he was journeying from Tarsus to 
Damascus.' Has some supernatural power dis- 
closed to him that his State and his people will be 
ruined if they remain in the Union? Where do 
we find the distinguished Senator only at the last 
session? On the 22d of May, last, when he 
made his celebrated reply to the Senator from Illi- 
nois, [Mr. Douglas,] the Senator from Louisi- 
ana, alluding to the contest for the Senate, be- 
tween Mr. Lincoln and Mr. Douglas, said: 

"In that contest, the two candidates for the Senate of the 
United States, in the State of Illinois, went before their 
people. They agreed to discuss the issues ; they put ques- 
tions to each other for answer ; and I must say here — for 
I must be just to all— that I have been surprised in the 
examination that I made again, within the last few days, 
of this discussion between Mr. Lincoln and Mr. Douglas, 
to find that, on several points, Mr. Lincoln is a far more 
conservative man, unless he has since changed his opinion, 
than I had supposed him to be. There was no dodging on 
his part. Mr. Douglas started with his questions. Here 
they are, with Mr. Lincoln's answers." 

The impression evidently made on the public 
mind then, before the presidential election, was 
that Lincoln, the rank Abolitionist now, was more 
conservative than Mr. Douglas; and he said fur- 
ther, after reading the questions put by Mr. Lin- 
coln, and his answers to them: 

" It is impossible, Mr. President, however we may differ 
in opinion with the man, not to admire the perfect candor 
and frankness with which the answers were given ; no 
equivocation; no evasion." 

Since that speech was made, since the Senator 
has traversed from California to this point, the 
gi-ievances, the oppressions of Louisiana, have 
become so great that she is justified in going out 
of the Union, taking into her possession the cus- 
tom-house, the mint, the navigation of the Mis- 
sissippi river, the forts, and arsenals. Where are 
we? " Oh, consistency, thou art a jewel, much 
to be admired, but rarely to be found,." 

Mr. President, I never do things by halves. I 
am against this doctrine entirely. I commenced 
making war upon it — a war for the Constitution 
and the Union— and I intend to sink or swim upon 
it. [Applause in the galleries.] In the remarks 
that I made on the 19th of December, I discussed 
at some length the alleged right of secession, I 
repudiated the whole doctrine. I introduced aii- 
thorities to show its unsoundness, and made de- 
ductions from those authorities which have not 
been answered to this day; but by innuendo and 
indirection, without reference to the person who 
used the authorities, attempts have been made to 
answer the speech. Let those who can, answer 
the speech, answer the authorities, answer the 



8 



conclusions which have been deduced from them. 
I was more than gratified , shortly afterwards, when 
one of the distinguished Senators from Virginia 
[Mr. Hunter] delivered a speech upon this floor, 
which it was apparent to all had been studied 
closely, which had been digested thoroughly; 
•which, in the language of another, had been conned 
and set down in a note-book, and got by rote; 
not only the sentences constructed, but the lan- 
guage measured. In the plan which he proposed 
as one upon which the Government can be con- 
tinued and administered, in his judgment, he 
brought his mind seemingly, irresistibly, to the 
conclusion that this doctrine of secession was a 
heresy. What does he say in that able, that 
methodical, that well-digested speech ? He goes 
over the whole ground. He has been reasoning 
on it; he has been examining the principle of seces- 
sion; he has gone to the conclusion to which it 
leads; and he is seemingly involuntarily, but irre- 
sistibly forced to admit that it will not do to ac- 
knowledge this doctrine of secession; for he says: 

"I have pri'sented this scheme. Mr. President, as one 
which, in uiy opinion, would adjust tlie differences lietween 
the two social systems, and which would protect each from 
the assault of the other. If this were done, so that we were 
made mutually safe, I, for one, would be willing to regu- 
late the right of secession, which I hold to be a right not 
given in the Constitution, but resulting from the nature of 
the compact. I would provide that before a State seceded, 
it should summon a convention of the States in the section 
to which it belonged, and submit to them a statement of 
its grievances and wrongs. Should a majority of the States 
in such a convention decide the complaint to be well 
founded, then the State ought to be permitted to secede in 
peace. For, whenever a m.^jority of States in an entire 
section shall declare that good cause for secession exists, 
then who can dispute that it ought to take place ? Should 
they say, however, that no good cause e.xisted, then the 
moral force of such a decision, on the part of confederates 
of those who are bound to the complaining State by iden- 
tical and homogeneous interests, would prevent it from 
prosecuting the claim any further." 

Sir, I quoted the Old Dominion extensively be- 
fore. I took the foundation of this doctrine and 
traced it along step by step, and showed that there 
was no such notion tolerated by the fathers of the 
Republic as the right of secession. Now, who 
comes up to my relief.' When the States are se- 
ceding, the distinguished Senator from Virginia! 
says, in so many words, that he admits the error,] 
and the force of the principle that a State ougiit 
not to be permitted to go out of the Confederacy 
without the consent of the remaining members. 
He says, however, that the right to secede results 
from the nature of the compact. Sir, I have read 
Mr. Jefferson, and I am as much inclined to rely 
on the former distinguished men of the State of 
Virginia as 1 am on the latter. In the old Articles 
of Confederation, when the revenue required for 
the support of the Federal Governnnent was appor- 
tioned among the States, and each State had to 
raise its portion, the great difficulty was, that there 
was no means by which the States could be coin- 
pelled to contribute their amount; there was no 
means of forcing the State to compliance; and yet 
Mr. Jefferson J in view of that very difficulty, said , 
in 1786: 

" It has been often said that the decisions of Congress 
are impotent, because the Confederation provides no com- 
pulsory power. But when two or more nations enter into 
compact, it is not u^ual for them to say what shall be done 



to the party who infringes it. Decency forbids this, and it 
is as unnecessary as indecent; because the right of com- 
pulsion naturally results to the party injured by the breach. 
When any one State in the American Union refuses obe- 
dience to the Confederation by which they have bound 
themselves, the rest have a natural right to compel them to 
obedience.'' 

The Senator from Virginia says a State has the 
right to secede from the Union, and that it is a 
right resulting from the nature of the compact; 
but Mr. Jefferson said that even under the old 
Articles of Confederation, no Slate had a right to 
refuse obedience to the Confederacy, and that 
there was a right to enforce its compliance: 

" Congress would probably exercise long patience before 
they would recur to force; but if the case ultimately re- 
quired it, they would use that recurrence. Should this 
case ever arise, they will probably coerce by a naval force, 
as being more easy, less dangerous to liberty, and less likely 
to produce much bloodshed." — Jefferson's Works, vol. 9, 
p. 291. 

When was this .' I have stated that it was un- 
der the old Articles of Confederation, when there 
was no power to compel a State even to contrib- 
ute her proportion of the revenues; but in that 
view of the case, Mr. Jefferson said that the in- 
jured party had a right to enforce compliance with 
the compact from the offending State, and that 
this was a right deducible from the laws of nature. 
The present Constitution was afterwards formed; 
and to avoid this difficulty in raising revenue, the 
power was conferred upon the Congress of the 
United States "to lay and collect taxes, duties, 
imposts, and excises," and the Constitution cre- 
ated a direct relation between the citizen and the 
Federal Government in that matter, and to that 
extent that relation is just as direct and complete 
between the Federal Government and the citizen 
as is the relation between the State and the citi- 
zen in other matters. Hence we find that, by 
an amendment to the Constitution of the United 
States, the citizen cannot even make a State a 
party to a suit, and bring her into the Federal 
courts. They wanted to avoid the difficulty of 
coercing a State, and the Constitution conferred 
on the Federal Government the power to operate 
directly upon the citizen, instead of operating on 
the States. It being the right of the Government 
to enforce obedience from the citizen in those mat- 
ters of which it has jurisdiction, the question 
comes up as to the exercise of this right. It may 
not always be expedient. It must depend upon 
discretion, as was eloquently said by the Senator 
from Kentucky [Mr. Crittenden] on one occa- 
sion. It is a matter of discretion, even as Mr. 
Jefferson laid it down before this provision ex- 
isted in the Constitution, before the Government 
had power to collect its revenue as it now has. I 
know that when , on a former occasion , I undertook 
to show, as I thought I did show, clearly and dis- 
tinctly, the difference between the existence and 
the exercise of this power, words were put into 
my mouth that I did not utter, and positions an- 
swered which I had never assumed. It was said 
that I took the bold ground of coercing a State. I 
expressly disclaimed it. I stated, in my speech, 
that, by the Constitution, we could not put a State 
into court; but I said there were certain relations 
created by the Constitution between the Federal 
Government and the citizen, and that we could 



9 



enforce those laws against the citizen. I took up 
the fugitive slave law, I lookup the revenue law; 
I took up the judicial system; 1 took up the post 
office system ; and I might have taken up the power 
to coin money and to punish counterfeiters, or the 
power to pass laws to punish mail robbers. 1 
showed that under these we had power, not to 
punish a State, but to punish individuals as vio- 
lators of the law. Who will deny it; who can 
deny it, that acknowledges the existence of the 
Government? This point, I think, was settled in 
the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of 
Ableman vs. Booth. When the decision of the 
Supreme Court is in our favor, we are very much 
for it; but sometimes we are not so well reconciled 
to it when it is against us. In that case the court 
decided: 

" But, as we hnva already said, questions of lliis kind 
must always depc^nd upon the Constitution and laws of the 
United States, and not of a State. The Constitution was 
not formed merely to guard the States against danger from 
foreign nations, but mainly to secure union andliannony at 
home ; for if this object could be obtained, there would be 
but little danger from abroad ; and to accomplish this pur- 
pose, it was felt hy the statesmen who framed the Constitu- 
tion, and by the people who adopted it, that it was neces- 
sary that many of the rights of sovereignty which the States 
then possessed should be ceded to the General Government ; 
and that, in the sphere of action assigned to it, it should be 
supreme, and strong enough to execute its own laws by its 
own tribunals, without interruption from a State or from 
State authorities. And it was evident that anything short 
of this would be inadequate to the main objects for which 
the Government was established ; and that local interests, 
local passions or prejudices, incited and fostered by indi- 
viduals for sinister purposes, would lead to acts of aggres- 
sion and injustice by one State upon the rights of another, 
which would ultimately terminate in violence and force, 
unless there was a common arbiter between them, armed 
with power enough to protect ami guard tlie rights of all, 
by appropriate laws, to be carried into execution peacefully 
by its judicial tribunals." — Howard's Supreme Court Re- 
ports, vol. 21, p. S16. 

When the fugitive slave law was executed in 
the city of Boston, by the aid of military force, 
■was that understood to be coercing a State, or was 
it simply understood to be an enforcement of the 
lawupon those who,it was assumed, had violated 
it.' In this same decision the Supreme Court de- 
clare that the fugitive slave law, in all its details, 
is constitutional,and therefore should be enforced. 
Who is prepared to say that the decision of the 
court shall not be carried out.' Who is prepared 
to say that the fugitive slave law shall not be en- 
forced? Do you coerce a State when you simply 
enforce the law? If one man robs the mail and 
you seek to arrest him, and he resists, and you 
employ force, do you call thatcoercion? If aman 
counterfeits your coin, and is arrested and con- 
victed, and punishment is resisted, cannot you 
execute the law? It is true thatsometimes so many 
may become infected with disobedience, outrages 
and violations of law may be participated in by so 
many, that they get beyond the control of the 
ordinary operations of law; the disaffection may 
swell to such proportions as to be toogreat for the 
Government to control; and then it becomes a 
matter of discretion, not a matter of constitutional 
right. 

In this connection, I desire to introduce an au- 
thority from Virginia, for I do delight in author- 
ity from the Old Dominion; and from the indica- 
tions that are now visible — although it is possible 



: that before the setting of the sun I may receive 
news that will convert my present hopes and my 
present exhilarated feeling.s into despair — she is 
going to make a stand for the Union and the Con- 
stitution. I delight in calling upon her for author- 

[ ity. The doctrine that I am trying to inculcate 

I here to-day was the doctrine of Virginia in 1814; 
and I ask my friend from California to read an ex- 

: tract which I have from the Richmond Enquirer 

I of the 1st of November, 1814. 

Mr. LATHAM read, as follows: 

" The Troe Question.— TAe Union is in danger. Turn 
j to the convention of Hartford, and learn to tremble at the 
I madness of its autliors. How far will those madmen ad- 
j vance ? Though they may conceal from you the project of 
i disunion, though a few of them may have even concealed 
1 It from themselves, yet who will pretend to set bounds to 
: the rage of disaffection .' One false step after another may 
lead them to resistance to the laws, to a treasonable neu- 
trality, to a war against the Government of the United 
States. In truth, the tirst act of resistance to the law is 
treason to the TJnitcd States. Are you ready for this state 
j of things? Will you support the men who would plunge 
; you into this ruin ? 

I " No man, no association of men, no State or set of States 
j has a right to withdraw itself from this Union, of its own 
accord. The same power which knit us together, can only 
unknit. The same formality which forged the links of the 
Union, is necessary to dissolve it. The majority of States 
which form the Union must consent to the withdrawal of 
C7ii/ortebranchof it. Until iAni consent has been obtained, 
any attempt to dissolve the Union, or obstruct the efficacy 
of its constitutional laws, is treason — treason to all intents 
and purposes. 

"Any other doctrine, such as that which has been lately 
held forth by the Federal Republican, that any one State 
may withdraw itself from the Union, is an abominable 
heresy — which strips its author of every possible preten- 
sion to the name or character of a Federalist. 

" We call, therefore, upon the Government of the Union, 
to exert its energies, when the season shall demand it — and 
seize the first traitor who shall spring out of the hotbed of 
the convention of Hartford. This illustrious Union, whicli 
has been cemented by the blood of our forefathers, the 
pride of America and the wonder of the world, must not 
be tamely sacrificed to the heated brains or the aspiring 
hearts of a few malcontents. Tiie Union must be saved, 
when any one shall dare to assail it. 

'■ Countrymen of the East ! we call upon you to keep a 
vigilant eye upon those wretched men who would plunge 
us into civil war and irretrievable disgrace. Whatever be 
the temporary calamities which may assail us, let us swear, 
upon the altar of our country, to save the Union." 

Mr. JOHNSON, of Tennessee. Mr. Presi- 
dent, I subscribe most heartily to the sentiment 
presented by the Richmond Enquirer of Novem- 
ber 1, 1814. Then it was declared by that high 
authority that the Union was to be saved; that 
those persons who were putting themselves in op- 
position to the law were traitors, and that their 
treason should be punished as such. Now, sir, 
what is treason? The Constitution of the United 
States defines it, and narrows it down to a very 
small compass. The Constitution declares that 
" treason against the United States shall consist 
only in levying war against them, or in adhering 
to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort." 
Who are levying war upon the United States? 
Who are adhering to the enemies of the United 
States, giving them aid and comfort ? Does it re- 
quire a man to take the lantern of Diogenes, and 
make a diligent search to find those who have been 
engaged in levying war against the United States ? 
Will it require any very great research or obser- 
vation to discover the adherents of those who are 
making war against the United States, and giving 



10 



them aid and comfort? If there are any such in 
the United States they ought to be punished accord- 
ing to law and the Constitution. [Apphiuse inthe 
galleries, which was suppressed by the Presiding 
Officer, Mr. Fitch in the chair.] Mr. Ritchie, 
speaking for the Old Dominion, used language that 
was unmistakable: "The treason springing out 
of the hot-bedof the Hartford convention should 
punished." It was all right to talk about trea- 
son then; it was all right to punish traitors in that 
direction. For myself, I care not whether treason 
be committed north or south; he that is guilty of 
treason deserves a traitor's fate. 

But, Mr. President, when we come to examine 
the views of some of those who have been engaged 
in this work, we find that the foundation of their 
desire to break up this Government dates beyond, 
and goes very far back of, any recent agitation of 
the slavery question. There are some men who 
want to break up this Government anyhow; who 
want a separation of the Union. There are some 
"who have got tired of a government brj the people. 
They fear the people. Take the State of South 
Carolina. Although she has had Senators on this 
floor who have acted a portion of the time with 
the Democratic party, and sometimes with no 
party, there is, in that State, an ancient and a fixed 
opposition to a government by the people. They 
have an early prejudice against this thing called 
democracy — a government of the people. They 
entertained the idea of secession at a very early 
day ; it is no new idea with them ; it has not arisen 
out of the slavery question and its recentagitation. 
Even to this good day, the people, the freemen 
of South Carolina, have never been permitted to 
vote for President and Vice President of the Uni- 
ted States. They have never enjoyed that great 
luxury of freemen , of having a voice in the selec- 
tion of their Chief Magistrate. 

I have before me an old volume. In the front- 
ispiece I find a picture of " William Moultrie, 
Esq., Inte Governor of South Carolina, and major 
generalin the American revolutionary war." The 
book is entitled, " Memoirs of the American Rev- 
olution, so far as it related to the States of Noi"th 
and South Carolina and Georgia;" and the author 
is William Moultrie. The Articles of Confeder- 
ation, it will be remembered, were adopted July 
9, 1778. South Carolina v/as one of the mem- 
bers of the Confederacy — a party to the compact. 
Charleston was besieged during the revolutionary 
war, in 1770, by the British. The defense of the 
town had been kept up for a considerable length 
of time, and at last General Moultrie sent a mes- 
sage to the British commander, desiring to know 
"on what terms he would be disposed to grant a 
capitulation." The answer of General Provost 
was submitted to the Governor, who summoned 
a council of war, and the result was the follow- 
ing message to the British commander: 

Charlestown, May 12, 1779. 
Sir: I cannot possibly apree to so dishonorable a propo- 
sal as is contained in your favor of yesterday ; hut if you 
will appoint an officer to confer on terms, 1 will send one 
to meet liiin, at such time and place as you lix on. 
I have the honor to be, &c., 

V/ILLIAM MOULTRIE, j 
Brigadier General Provost. j 



This is to be found on pages 431 and 432 of 
Moultrie's Memoirs. On the latter page he says: 

" When tlie question was carried for giving up the town 
upon a neutrality, I will not say who was for the question ; 
but this I well remember, that Mr. John Edwards, one of 
the Privy Council, a worthy citizen,anda very respectable 
merchant of Charlestown, was so affected as to weep, and 
said, ' What ! are we to give up the town at last.-" " 

He says that he endeavored to get a message 
carried from the Governor and Council to General 
Provost. Those to whom he applied begged' to 
be excused; but finally he pressed them into a 
compliance. The message was: 

" To propose a neutrality during the war between Great 
Britain and America, and the question whether the State 
shall belong to Great Britain, or remain one of the United 
States, be determined by the treaty of peace between those 
two Powers." 

The Governor, it seems, proposed a neutrality; 
proposed to withdraw from the Confederacy, to 
desist from resistance to Great Britain, and leave 
it to the two Powers, in making a treaty, to say 
whether they should remain a colony of Great 
Britain or be one of the United States. Jit this 
early day, South Carolina loas willing to go back and 
be subjected to the Crown of Great Britaiii under 
King George III. 

Mr. WIGFALL. I ask the Senator merely to 
permit me to correct him as to a fact. 

Mr. JOHNSON, of Tennessee. I do not yield 
the floor. 

Mr. WIGFALL. I do not intend to interrupt 
you 

Mr. JOHNSON, of Tennessee. I do not yield 
the floor. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER, (Mr. Fitch.) 
The Senator from Tennessee is entitled to the 
floor. 

Mr. WIGFALL. The Articles of Confedera- 
tion were formed in 1781; that is all. 

Mr. JOHNSON, of Tennesfsee. I have them 
before me: "Articles of Confederation and Per- 
petual Union;" and they end: "Done at Phila- 
delphia, in the State of Pennsylvania, the 9th day 
of July, in the year of our Lord 1778." 

Mr. WIGFALL. They were ratified in 1781. 
If you will read history and inform yourself, you 
will not fall into so many errors: 1781 is the 
time; I know it. 

Mr. JOHNSON, of Tennessee. I will just refer 
to the document. 

Mr. WIGFALL. While the Senator is look- 
ing over it, I will merely observe that I made the 
correction out of kindness to him. 

Mr. JOHNSON, of Tennessee. I always pre- 
fer having correct ideas, and selecting my own 
sources of information. [Laughter.] 

Mr. WIGFALL. The year 1781 was the time 
the Articles of Confederation were ratified. You 
were simply mistaken; that is all. 

Mr. JOHNSON, of Tennessee. I donotaccept 
the correction, nor have I very much respect for 
the motive that prompted it. Let that be as it may^ 
liowever, it docs not change the great historical 
fact that at that day, instead of holding out with 
the other colonies who were members of the Con- 
federacy and engaged in the war. South Carolina 
was willing to enter into an agreement of neu- 
trality and go back under the protection of King 



11 



George III. I have another document that I wish tn 
read from; a book called " The Remembrancer, or 
Impartial Repository of Public Events for the 
year 1780." In that year the peo[)le of Charles- 
ton, a large number of them, in view of the dif- 
ficulties then upon the country, prepared an ad- 
dress, which I ask my friend from California, who 
reads so much better than I do, to read for me. 
Mr. LATHAM read, as follows: 

To their Excellencies, Sir Henry Clinton, Kni«ht of 
the Bath, General of his Majestj/'s forces, and Mariot 
Arburthnot, Esq., Vice Jldmiral of the Blue, his Ma- 
jesty's Commissioners to restore peace and good govern- 
ment in the several colonies inrebcilionin North America: 
The humble address of divers inhabitants of Charles- 
town : 

The inliabilants ofCliarlestown, by the articles of capit- 
ulation, are declared prisoners of war on parole; but we, 
the underwritten, having every inducement to return to 
our allegiance, and ardently hoping speedily to be read- 
mitted to the character and condition of Uritish subjects, 
take this opportunity of tendering to your Excellencies our 
warmest congratulations on the restoration of this capital 
and province to their political connection with the Crown 
and Government of Great Britain ; an event which will add 
luster to your Excellencies' characters, and, we trust, en- 
title you to the most distinguishing mark of the royal favor. 
Although the rightof taxing America in Parliament excited 
considerable ferment in the minds of the people of this 
province, yet it may, with a religious adherence to truth, be 
affirmed that they did not entertain the most distant thought 
of dissolving the union that so happily subsisted between 
them and their parent country ; and when, in the progress of 
that fatal controversy, the doctrine of independency (which 
originated in the more northern colonies) made its appear- 
ance among us, our nature revolted at the idea, and we look 
back with the most painful regret on those convulsions that 
gave existence to a power of subverting a constitution for 
which we always had, and ever shall r(!tain, the most pro- 
found veneration, and substituting in its stead a rank de- 
mocracy, which, however carefully digested in theory, on 
being reduced into practice has exhibited a system of ty- 
rannic domination only to be tound among the uncivilized 
part of mankind or in the history of the dark and barbarous 
ages of antiquity. 

We sincerely lament that, after the repeal of those stat- 
utes which gave rise to the troubles in America, the over- 
tures made by liis Majesty's Commissioners, from time to 
time, were not regarded by our late rulers. To tbis fatal 
inattention are to be attributed those calamities which have 
involved our country in a state of misery and ruin from 
which, however, we trust it will soon emerge, by the 
wisdom and clemency of his Majesty's auspicious Govern- 
ment, and the intiucncesof prudential laws, adapted to the 
nature of the evils we labor under; and that the people will 
be restored to those privileges, in the enjoyment whereof 
their former felicity consisted. 

Animated with these hopes, we entreat your Excellen- 
cies' interposition in assuring his Majesty that we shall 
glory in every occasion of manifesting that zeal and affec- 
tion for his person and Government with which gratitude 
can inspire a free and joyful people. 
Charlestown, June 5, 1780. 

[Signed by two hundred and ten of the principal inhab- 
itants.] — The Remembrancer, part 2, 1780; page 84. 

Mr. JOHNSON, of Tennessee. It will be seen , 
from these two documents, what the early notions 
of the people of South Carolina were. There 
never was, and I doubt very much whether, with 
a large portion of them, there ever will be, any 
ideas of the people governing themselves. They 
had, at that early day, a great aversion to a gov- 
ernvient by the people. It was repudiated; and in 
the document which has just been read, signed by 
two hundred and ten citizens of Charleston, they 
proposed to pass back under the British Govern- 
ment. This carries out the previous proposition 
to remain with Great Britain by treaty stipulation, 



and not go through the revolutionary struggle with 
the colonies with whom they had formed a confed- 
eration. 

Again: in 1833, under the pretense of resist- 
ance to the operation of our revenue system and 
to a protective tariff, they endeavored to break 
up the Government. They were overruled then. 
Their pride was wounded by that failure; and 
their determination was fi.xed, whenever it was in 
their power, to break up this Government and go 
out of the Union. This feeling, I have no doubt, 
has existed there from that period to the present 
time. When we turn to the debates which re- 
cently took place in the South Carolina conven- 
tion, we find that Mr. Maxcy Gregg, Mr. Rhett, 
and others, said that their reason for going out of 
the Union now dates as far back as forty years; 
some of them said thirty years, and some twenty. 
Mr. Gregg said, in the South Carolina conven- 
tion, on the 21st of December last: 

" If we undertake to set forlh all the causes, do we not 
dishonor the memory of all the statesmen of South Caro- 
lina, now departed, who connnenced forty years agoa war 
against the tariff and against internal improvements, saying 
nothing of the United States Bank, and other measiires, 
which may now be regarded as obsolete." 

Mr. Rhett, on the 24th of December, said: 
'•The secession of South Carolina is not an event of a 
day. It is not anything produced by Mr. Lincoln's elec- 
tion, or by the noii-execution of the fugitive slave law. It 
has been a matter which has been gathering head for thirty 
years." 

Hence we see that there is a design with some 
to breakup this Government without reference to 
the slavery question; and the slavery question is 
by them made a pretense for destroying this Union. 
They have at length passed their ordinance of 
secession; they assume to be out of the Union; 
they declare t'hat tliey are no longer a member of 
the Confederacy. Now what are the other States 
called upon to do .' Are the other States called 
upon to make South Carolina an exemplar.' Are 
those slave States who believe that freemen should 
govern and that freemen can take care of slave 
property, to be "precipitated into a revolution" 
by following the example of South Carolina.' 
Will they do it.' What protection, what security- 
will Tennessee, will Kentucky, will Virginia, will 
Maryland, or any other State, receive from South 
Carolina by following her example .' What pro- 
tection can she give them ? On the contrary, she 
indulges in a threat towards them — a threat that 
if they do not imitate her example and come into 
a new confederacy upon her terms, they are to be 
]iut under the ban, and their slave property to be 
subjected to restraint and restriction. What pro- 
tection can South Carolinagive Tennessee? Any.' 
None upon the face of the earth. 

Some of the men who are engaged in the work 
of disruption and dissolution, want Tennessee 
and Kentucky and Virginia to furnish them with 
men and money in the event of their becoming 
engaged in a war for the conquest of Mexico. 
The Tennesseeans and Kentuckians and Virgin- 
ians are very desirable when their men and their 
money are wanted; but what protection does 
South Carolina give Tennessee.' If negro prop- 
erty is endangered in Tennessee, we have to de- 
fend it and take care ofit — not South Carolina, that 



12 



has been an apple of discord in this Confederacy 
from my earliest recollection down to the present 
time, complaining of everything, satisfied with 
nothing. I do not intend to be invidious, but I 
have sometimes thought that it would be a com- 
fort if Massachusetts and South Carolina could be 
chained together as the Siamese twins, separated 
from the continent, and taken out to some remote 
and secluded part of the ocean, and there fast 
anchored, to be washed by the waves, and to be 
cooled by the winds; and after they had been 
kept there a sufficient length of time, the people 
of the United States might entertain the proposi- 
tion of taking them back. [Laughter.] They 
have been a source of dissatisfaction pretty much 
ever since they entered the Union; and some ex- 
periment of this sort, I think, would operate ben- 
eficially upon them; but as they are here, we must 
try to do the best we can with them. 

REPLY TO MR. LANE. 

Somuch.Mr. President, for South Carolina and 
Louisiana in this struggle. I do not think they are 
setting examples very worthy of imitation. But, 
sir, the speech that 1 made on the 19th of Decem- 
ber seems to have produced some little stir; and 
among other distinguished Senators, the Senator 
from Oregon [Mr. Lane] felt it his duty, late in 
the evening, to make a reply to me. I do not see 
why it was called for from the Senator from Ore- 
gon. I did not know that I had said anything 
that was offensive to him; it was not my inten- 
tion to do so; it was an inadvertence, if I did. I 
felt that I had just come out of a campaign in 
•which I had labored hard, and in which I had ex- 
pended my money and my time in vindicating 
him and the present Vice President, who was a 
candidate for the Presidency, from the charge of 
favoring secession and disunion. Through the 
dust and heat, through the mud and rain, I trav- 
ersed my State, meeting the charge -of the Opposi- 
tion that secession was at the bottom of this move- 
ment; that there was a fixed design and plan to 
break up this Government; that it started at 
Charleston, and was consummated at Baltimore; 
and the charge was made that my worthy friend 
— if I may be permitted to call him such ; I thought 
I was his friend then — was the embodiment of 
disunion and secession. I met the charge. I 
denied it. I repudiated it. I tried to convince the 
people — and I think I did succeed in convincing 
some of them— that the charge was untrue; and 
that he and Mr. Breckinridge were the two best 
Union men in the country. I did not see what 
there was in my speech that should extort reply 
from him, who resided away North. I had not 
come in conflict with anything that he had said or 
done. When he was striking these blows at me 
without cause, I thought it was, at least, unkind. 
1 may not have defended him to his entire satis- 
faction. It so turned out that we were unfortu- 
nate; we were defeated ; but I was willing to stand 
like a man; to stand upon the Constitution and 
the Union, and, if I must fall, fall decently. Af- 
ter I had gone through the canvass; after I had 
defended the Senator, and sustained him with my 
voice and my vote, I thought it was strange that 
he should attack me in the manner he did. I felt 



like replying to him, on the spur of the occasion; 
but it was late in the evening, and by the time he 
had concluded, the Senate was tired out, and I 
declined going on. I preferred to let it pass, and 
submit to all the wrong and injury inflicted upon 
me. In his speech upon that occasion, the Sena- 
tor from Oregon made use of the following lan- 
guage: 

" He [alluding to myself] has spoken very handsomely 
of the gallant conduct of that glorious hand, the northern 
Democracy of the country, who, though In a minority at 
home, have struggled for the rights of their southern breth- 
ren—for the equality and rights of all the States. I belong 
to that portion of the people of this country ; and I will say 
to that honorable gentleman that while they struggle for the 
constitutional rights of the other States of the Union, as 
they have always done, and as tliey will continue to do, 
there is one thing that they will not do : they will not march 
under his banner to strike down a gallant, chivalrous, and 
generous people contending for rights that have been re- 
fused them by the other States of this Union. They will 
not march with him under his bloody banner, or Mr. Lin- 
coln's, to invade the soil of the gallant State of South Car- 
olina when she may withdraw from a Confederacy that has 
refused her that equality to which she is entitled, as a mem- 
ber of the Union, under the Constitution. On the contrary, 
when he or any other gentleman raises that banner and at- 
tempts to subjugate that gallant people, instead of march- 
ing with him, we will meet him there, ready to repel hira 
and his forces. He shall not bring with him the northern 
Democracy to strike down a people contending for rights 
that have been refused them in a Union that ought to rec- 
ognize the equality of every member of the Confederacy." 

I do not know that I used any argument that 
shotild have caused a reply like that. Did any- 
body hear me use the term " bloody banner? " 
Did anybody hear me talk about marching down 
upon South Carolina? Did any body hear me speak 
about coercing a State ? No. 

Mr. LANE. Will the Senator allow me a 
word ? 

Mr. JOHNSON, of Tennessee. I would rather 
go on, sir. Why, then, answer positions I did 
not assume, or attribute to me language that I did 
not use? Was it in the speech? No. Why, then, 
use language and assign a position to me which, 
if not intended, was calculated to make a false im- 
pression? What called it forth? What reason 
was there for it? 1 saw the consternation which 
was created. I looked at some of their faces. I 
knew that I had stirred up animosit)r,and it was 
I important that somebody from another quarter 
i should make the attack. If the attack had been 
j upon what I said or upon the position I had as- 
, sumed, I should have no cause to complain; and 
I I do not complain now. Sir, though not very old, 
j I have lived down some men. I have survived 
I many misrepresentations. I feel that I have a 
conscience and a heart that will lead me to do it 
again. But when I had said nothing, when I had 
j done nothing, to be struck by him whom I have 
1 vindicated, I might well have exclaimed, " That 
I was the unkindest cut of all." 

Again: the Senator said: 
j " If it should come unfortunately upon this country, in- 
augurated by a tyrant, who would like to conquer and hold 
j American citizens as vassals, then I will say to that coward 
1 who would do it, ' You will walk over your humble ser- 
vant's body first.' 1 shall never cooperate with any portion 
of this country, North or South, that would strike down a 
people contending for their rights." 

I march down upon South Carolina! Did I 
propose any such thing? No. War is not the 



13 



natural element of my mind; and, as I stated in 
that speech, my thoughts were turned on peace, 
and not on war. I want no strife. I want no war. 
In the language of a denomination that is numer- 
ous in the country, I may say I hate war and love 
peace. I belong to the peace party. I thought, 
when I was making that speech, that I was hold- 
ing out the olive branch of peace. I wanted to 
give quiet and reconciliation to a distracted and 
excited country. That was the object I had in 
view. War, I repeat, is not the natural element 
of my mind. I would rather wear upon my gar- 
ments the dinge of the shop and the dust of the 
field, as badges of the pursuits of peace, than the 
gaudy epaulet upon my shoulder, or a sword 
dangling by my side, with its glittering scabbard, 
the insigniaof strife, of war, of blood, of carnage; 
sometimes of honorable and glorious war. But, 
sir, I would rather see the people of the United 
States at war wit!\ every other Power upon the 
habitable globe, than to be at war with each other, j 
If blood must be shed, let it not be shed by the 
people of these States, the one contending against 
the other. 

But the Senator went on still further in that dis- 
cussion. Why it was necessary to follow up his 
attack upon me, I cannot tell. Alluding to the i 
Senator from Tennessee, he said: ' 

" He took occasion to give an account of the action of the 
Senate upon certain resolutions introduced here, setting 
forth the principles tliat were made the issue in the late 
contest, and that were overridden and trodden down. He 
called the attention of the Senate to a proposition intro- 
duced by the honorable Senator from Mississippi [Mr. 
Brown] to declare that now is the time for action ; that a 
law ought to be passed at this time protecting property in the 
Territories. Though it was my opinion then that it would 
have been well to pass such a law, yet that Senator knew, 
and so did every other one, tliat it was impossible in this 
Congress to pass such a law. We might have passed such 
a bill through this body, but it could never have passed the 
other. Then it was our duty, as it was our privilege, to set 
forth the principles on which this Government reposed, and 
which must be maintained, or the Government cannot exist. 
They were the principles upon which this great battle was 
fought, that resulted in the election of Mr. Lincoln." 

Before I take up that proposition in connection 
with what I said before, I wish to say here that, 
had the Senator avowed the doctrine prior to the 
last presidential election that he avowed here in 
reply to me, expressing his secession and dis- 
union sentiments,! give it as my opinion that he 
could not have obtained ten thousand votes in the 
State of Tennessee in the last election, and I think 
I know what I say. I give that, however, simply 
as my opinion. 

But to come back to the point at which the Sen- 
ator speaks of the resolutions introduced by the 
Senator from Mississippi, [Mr. Davis.] I had 
referred to those resolutions to show that there [ 
was no occasion for this imme''iate secession with- 
out giving the people time to think or understand 
what was to be done. I thought so then, and 1 1 
think so now; and I want to show what the Sen- 
ator's views were then, and see what has brought | 
about such a change upon his mind since. We 
find that while those resolutions were under con- 
sideration, Mr. Clingman offered an amendment, 
to come in after the fourth resolution, to insert the j 
following: 

" Resolved, That the existing condition of the Territories 



of the United States does not require the intervention of 
Congress for the protection of jiroperty in slaves. 

" On the question to agree to tlie amendment proposed 
by Mr. Brown, to wit: Strike out of the amendment the 
word ' not,' 

" It was determined in the negative— yeas .5, nays 43." 

Now,by striking out the word " not, "it makes 
the resolution read: 

" Resolved, That the existing condition of the Territories 
of the United States does require the intervention of Con- 
gress for the protection of property in slaves." 

Mr. Brown, of Mississippi, moved to strike 
out the word " not," thereby making it read that 
the condition of the Territories does require the 
protection of Congress for slave property; and 
upon the yeas and nays being taken on tliat mo- 
tion to strike out the word " not," there were — 
yeas 5, nays 43. 

" On motion of Mr. Clingman, 

" The yeas and nays being desired by one fifth of the 
Senators present, 

" Those who voted in the affirmative are : Messrs. Brown, 
Clay, Iverson, Johnson of Arkansas, Yulee. 

" Those who voted in the negative are : Messrs. Benja- 
min, Bigler, Bingham, Bragg, Bright, Chandler, Chesnut, 
Clark, Clingman, Collamer, Crittenden, Davis, Dixon, Doo- 
little, Fitzpatrick, Foot, Green, Gvvin, Hale, Hamlin, Ham- 
mond, Hemphill, Hunter, Johnson of Tennessee, Kennedy, 
Lane, Latham, Mallory, Mason, Nicholson, Pearce, Polk, 
Powell, Pugh, Rice, Sebastian, Slidell, Ten Eyck, Toombs, 
Trumbull, Wade, Wigfall, Wilson." 

Thus, forty-three Senators recorded their vote 
during the last session of Congress that it was 
not necessary to pass a law to protect slavery in 
the Territories. The Senator from Oregon, in 
connection with other Senators, under the solemn 
sanction of an oath, declared that it was not ne- 
cessary to pass laws for the protection of slavery 
in the Territories. What right has South Caro- 
lina lost since the last session? What right has 
any State lost sin^e the last session of Congress.' 
You declared that it was not necessary to pass a 
law to protect them in the enjoyment of their 
JDroperty in the Territories; and now, forsooth, 
in the short space of two or three moons, you 
turn around and tell the country that States are 
justified in going out of the Union because Con- 
gress will not pass a law to protect them in the 
enjoyment of their property in the Territories, 
when you said it was not necessary ! That is 
what I call driving the nail in. [Laughter.] 1 
will remark, as I go along, that the eloquent and 
distinguished Senator who made his valedictory 
here yesterday, on retiring from the Senate, voted 
for that identical resolution. This protection was 
not necessary then. They said it was wholly 
unnecesary. But since that, they have waked up 
to a sense of its necessity, and resolved to secede 
if it should not be granted. To this same prop- 
osition Mr. Albert G. Brown offered an amend- 
ment. Mark you, this is the 25th day of May, 
1860; and that is not long ago: 

" On motion by Afr. Brown, to amend the resolution by 
striking out all after the world ' resolved,' and in lieu 
thereof, inserting: " 

I wish I had the whole continent here to hear 
this paragraph. 

"That experience having already shown that the Con- 
stitution and the common law, unaided by statutory enact- 
ment, do not atibrd adequate and sufficient protection to 
slave property; some of the Territories having failed, others 



14 



having refused to pass such enactments, it lias become tlie 
duty of Congress to interpose and pass such laws as will 
afford to slave property in the Territories that protection 
which is given toother kinds of property." 

That is a pretty clear proposition. Upon that, 
Mr. Brown made an argument, showing the num- 
ber of slaves in the Territories, and the action of 
the Legislatures, and concluded that if the time 
ever would arrive, it was then before Congress, 
and they should pass a law on the subject. What 
was the vote upon that? How does it stand? 
We find, after an argument being made by Mr. 
Brown, showing that the necessity did exist, ac- 
cording to his argument, the vote upon the prop- 
osition stood thus: The question being taken by 
yeas and nays, it was determined in the negative 
— yeas 3, nays 42. 

Forty-two Senators voted that you did not need 
protection; that slavery was not in danger. 

"The yeas and nays being desired by one lifth of the 
Senators present, 

" Those who voted in the affirmative are: Messrs. Brown, 
Johnson of Arliansas, Mallory." 

There were only thi-ee. Who said it was not 
necessary ? Who declared, under the solemn sanc- 
tion of an oath, that protection was not needed? 

" Those who voted in the negative, are : " Messrs. Ben- 
jamin"— 

Ah ! Yes; Benjamin ! — 
" Bigler, Bragg, Bright, Chesniit, Clark, Clay, Clingnian, 
Crittenden, Davis, Dixon, Doolittle, Filzpatrick, Foot, 
Foster, Green, Grimes, Gwin, Hamlin, Hailan, Iluniphill, 
Hunter" — 

Hunter, of Virginia, also ! — 
"Iverson, Johnson of Tennessee, Lane." 

Ah! [Laughter.] Yes,LANE,of Oregon, voted 
on the 25th day of last May, that slavery did not 
need protection in the Territories. Now he will 
get up and tell the American paople and the Sen- 
ate that he is for a State seceding, and for break- 
ing up the Government, because they cannot get 
what he swore they did not need. [Laugliter.] 
That is what I call putting the nail through. 
[Laughter in the galleries.] 

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Fitch in 
the chair.) The galleries must preserve order. 

Mr. JOHNSON, of Tennessee. Then, after 
voting that it was not necessary to have a prop- 
osition to protect slavery in the Territories, the 
original proposition, as amended, was adopted by 
a vote of 35 yeas to 2 nays; thus voting all the 
way through, even to thefinal aetionof the Senate, 
that no such protection was necessary. You have 
not got protection, your rights, your " equality;" 
and you tell me now by your position that I have 
done you injustice by defeiiduig you against the 
charge that you were in favor of adissolution of the 
Union! Even if you approved it, it would only 
show that I was mistaken. 1 was deceived then; 
that was your fault; if deceived again, the fault 
will be mine. 1 assumed, on that occasion, in refer- 
ence to the act of ratification of the Constitution by 
the State of Virginia, that so far as I was capable of 
examining it, Virginia had made no reservation, 
no condition, in her ratification of the Constitution 
of the United States. I had examined the ques- 
tion ; I had looked at all the authorities that could 
be found upon the subject, and I could find no 
warrant for the assertion; but still the Senator 



from Oregon, in his reply to me, spoke with great 
familiarity of the proceedings of that convention 
ratifying the Constitution, as though he under- 
stood it; and with great confidence said it had 
made a reservation. I will read what he said: 

"That gallant old State of Virginia, that glorious Old 
Dominion, made a condition upon which she adopted the 
Constitution. It became a portion of the compact. And 
not only Virginia, but New York, made the same condition 
when she adopted the Constitution ; and Rhode Island 
also." 

He spoke with great confidence in this reply to 
me. He then said: 

" Now, I would ask the honorable Senator from Tennes- 
see, if the time has not arrived when these States ought to 
resume the powers conferred on a Federal Government ; 
or if it has not, I should like to know when the time can 
come." 

After declaring under the solemn sanction of an 
oath that no protection was needed, and nothing 
else has since transpired, he wants to know when 
the time will come, if it has not come, that they 
will be justified in breaking up this Confederacy ? 
I saw a good deal of the confusion that was here 
that evening; authorities were hunted up, para- 
graphs marked, and leaves turned down; all, I 
supposfi, to facilitate the intended attack. Some- 
times a man had a great deal better read and under- 

i stand a question for himself before he hazards an 
opinion. I will not say that that is the case with 
the honorable Senator, for I should proceed upon 
the idea that he was laboring under the impression 

i that he understood it exactly. It is not a very 
uncommon occurrence to be mistaken. Some- 
times the mistake results from a want of exam- 
ination; sometimes from an incapacity to under- 
stand the subject, and various other causes. So 
it is that it occurs very frequently we labor under 
false impressions. We find when we come to 
examine this subject of the ratification of the Con- 
stitution by Virginia, that a committee was ap- 
pointed in the convention of Virginia, and that 
that committee reported a set of resolutions. They 
reported one resolution in lieu of the preamble. 
That resolution is as follows: 

" Resolved, That previous to the ratification of the new 
Constitution of Government recommended by the late Fed- 
eral convention, a declaration of rights, asserting and secur- 
ing from encroachment the great principles of civil and 
religious liberty, and the inalienable rights of the people, 
together with amendments to the most exceptionable parts 
of the said Constitution of Government, ought to be referred 
by this convention to the other States in the American Con- 
federacy for their consideration." — EilioVs Debates on the 
Federal Constitution, vol. 3, p. 653. 

Here was a proposition makingconditions; and 
upon a vote to adopt this amendment it was voted 
down — ayes 80, noes 88. Then what follows? 
The committee reported an ordinance adopting 
the Constitution of the United State.s; but in their 
ordinance they go on and make a kind of pream- 
ble, or a whereas, a declaration as to their under- 
standing — not conditions, not reservations — but a 
declaration of their understanding. What do they 
say: 

'•' We, the delegates of the people of Virginia, duly elected 
in pursuance of 'a recommendation from the General As- 
semblv, and now met in con vention, having fully and freely 
investigated and discussed the proceedings of the Federal 
convention, ajid being prepared as well as tiie most mature 
deliberations Iiatli enabled us, to decide thereon" — 



u 



Now, mark you — ' 

"do, in the name and in the behalf of the people of Vir- 
ginia, declare and make known, that the powers granted i 
under the Constitution, being derived from the people of i 
the United States, be resumed by them whensoever the 
same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression." — 
Elliot's Debates on the Federal Constitution, vol. 3, p. 656. 

They declare, in behalf of Virginia, that the 
powers of the Constitution are derived from the 
people of the United States, to " be resumed by 
them whenever they shall be converted to their 
injury or oppression." Who is to resume them? 
The people of the United States. That idea was 
always inculcated by James Madison. What 
more do they say.' This is not the ratifying 
clause. They say: 

" With these impressions"— 

Not these conditions, not these reservations — 

" With these impressions, with a solemn appeal to the 
Searcher of hearts, for the purity of our intentions, and 
under the conviction that whatsoever imperfections may 
exist in the Constitution, ought rather to be examined in 
tlie mode prescribed therein, than to bring tlie Union into 
danger by delay with a hope of obtaining amendments pre- 
vious to the ratiljcatiou." 

Now comes the ordinance of adoption; and 
what is it: 

" We, the said delegates, in the name and behalf of the 
people of Virginia, do, by these presents, assent to and rat- 
ify the Constitution, recommended on the 17th day of Sep- 
tember, 1787, by the Federal Convention, for the govern- 
ment of the United Slates ; hereby announcing to all whom 
it may concern that the said constitution is binding upon 
tlie said people, according to an authentic copy hereunto 
annexed in the words following." — EllioVs Debates on the 
Federal Constitution, vol. 3, p. 656. 

Is there any reservation or condition there.' It 
seems to me that the sight of a man would be ■ 
tolerably keen that could see a condition there. 
When was this .' We find that Virginia adopted 
that on Tuesday, June 26, 17S8. When did South 
Carolina come into the Union .' Before Virginia 
did. If Virginia made a condition, Soitth Caro- ] 
lina was already in. How many States v/ere in .' 
The covenant was formed and had been ratified ' 
by nine States before Virginia came into the 
Union. The idea of Virginia appending condi-: 
tions after the Government was formed and the 
Constitution ratified by nine States ! 

But, to make this thing more clear, Mr. Madi-I 
son, while in New York, received a letter from I 
Mr. Hamilton, stating that he had some doubts 
as to the ratification of the Constitution by New 
York; that they wanted some conditions, and one 
condition was, that they might have the privilege to 
recede within five or seven years in the event cer- 
tain amendments were not adopted to the Consti- 
tution. I should have remarked, before passing 
to this, that they adopted it, not wanting delay, 
and then went in the same committee to report a 
long list of amendments to be submitted, and 
some of them were ratified afterwards by the dif- 
ferent States. Mr. Madison writes, in reply to 
Mr. Hamilton, and tells him, if the Constitution 
is adopted, it must be adopted in toto, without 
reservation or condition. I am inclined to think 
Mr. Madison had some idea of this ordinance. I 
think he understood it. Here is his letter. That 
ordinance was adopted in Virginia, on June 26, 



1778, and, in reply to Mr. Hamilton, in the fol- 
lowing July, Mr. Madison said: 

" The idea of reserving a right to withdraw was started 
at Richmond, and considered as a conditional ratification, 
which was itself abandoned as worse than a rejection." 

Does not that show that I have put the correct 
interpretation upon it.' James Madison under- 
stood it as being an abandonment. I would as 
soon rely upon his construction of the ordinance 
that brought Virginia into the Union as I would 
on that of the distinguished Senator from Oregon. 
1 am inclined to think he was quite as familiar 
with the history of that transaction and with the 
whole subject as the Senator from Oregon, with 
all his familiarity and astuteness on the subject. 
So much in answer to that portion of the Sena- 
tor's argument. We find upon an examination, 
as I before remarked, that nine States had ratified 
the Constitution before Virginia came in. New 
York, North Carolina, and Rhode Island came in 
afterwards. Mr. Madison so understood it. The 
fathers of the Republic so understood it. The 
country so understand it. Common sense so un- 
derstands it. Practicability so understands it. 
Everything that pertains to the preservation and 
salvation of the Government so understands it, as 
contradistinguished from the admission of this 
doctrine of secession. 

But let us progress a little further. The Gov- 
ernment was formed; the Constitution was rati- 
fied; and after the Constitution was ratified and 
the Government in existence, there is provision 
made, for what.' " New States may be admitted 
by the Congress into this Union." These are 
the words of the Constitution. Congress has the 
power to prescribe the terms and conditions of 
admission of a new State into the Union; and in 
the discretion of Congress, they are admitted upon 
an equal footing with the other States. It being 
an express grant to admit, I say the Federal Gov- 
ernment can exercise incidents that are necessary 
and proper to carry the admission of States into 
existence upon such a basis as they believe the 
good of the Government demands. I am not so 
sure but the admission of a new State is placed 
upon a different ground from that of one of the 
original States ratifying the Constitution. As the 
Senator seems to be so familiar with things of this 
sort, I will refer to the act admitting the State of 
Alabama: 

An act to enable the peopleof Alabama Territory to form 
a constitution and State government, and for the admission 
of such State into the Union on an equal footing with the 
original States. (Approved March 2, 1819.) 

Be it enacted, ^-c. That the inhabitants of the Territory 
of Alabama be, and they are hereby, authorized to form for 
themselves a constitution and State government, and to as- 
sume such name as they may think proper ; and that the 
said Territory, when formed into a State, shall be admitted 
into Uie Union upon the same footing with the original 
States, in all respects whatever. 

Here is the ordinance of Alabama accepting the 
terms of the above act; passed 2d August, 1819: 
"This convention, for and In behalf of the people inhab- 
iting this State, do accept the propositions oftVred by the 
act of Congress under which they are assembled ; and this 
convention, for and in behalf of the people inhabiung this 
i State, do ordain, agree, and declare." * * , * . v,* 
"And this ordinance is hereby declared irrevocable with- 
1 out tlie consent of tlie United States." 



16 



This act was declared irrevocable. They agreed 
to the conditions offered to them in the act of Con- 
gress with reference to the public lands and other 
subjects, and then the ordinance of coming into the 
Union was declared irrevocable without the con- 
sent of the United States. Congress then passed 
an act accepting them upon the terms they im- 
posed. That was the compact. What has been 
done to Alabama .' What great complaint has she ? 
Why should she leave the Union in such hot 
haste ? 

So much for that, sir. In the remarks that I 
made when I last addressed the Senate, I referred 
to the constitution of the State of Tennessee, 
which was adopted in 1796, and their bill of rights, 
in which they declare that they would never sur- 
render or give up the navigation of the Missis- 
sippi to any people. The Senator from Oregon, 
on that occasion, in reply to me, vised the follow- 
ing language: 

"Then he is concerned about tlie navigation of the Mis- 
sissippi river. He says that the great State of Tennessee 
and he, liimself, are concerned about the navigation of that 
river. I believe it is recognized as tlie law of nations, as 
the law of all civilized nations, that a great inland sea run- 
ning through several Governments shall be open equally to 
all of tliem ; and besides, as the honorable Senator from 
Louisiana said, there is no man in Louisiana that would 
think for a moment of depriving Tennessee of the right of 
navigating that great river. No, sir, nor Kentucky cither, 
nor Indiana, nor Illinois, nor any other State whose waters 
flow into that mighty stream. No such thing would ever be 
done." 

That was the Senator's declaration then, that 
nobody would question the right of those States 
to navigate that great inland sea. He seemed to 
show great familiarity with international law. I 
took it for granted that he had read Grotius and 
Wheaton upon international law, and all the other 
authorities on the subject, for he spoke about it 
with great familiarity, as if he understood it well. 
How docs the matter stand, sir.' Before the 
printer's ink that impressed his speech upon the 
paper is dry, we find an ordinance passed, as I 
remarked before, by the State of Louisiana, de- 
claring negatively that she has the right to control 
the navigation of that river under her act of seces- 
sion. If the Senator had put himself to the trou- 
ble, as I presume he did, or ought to have done, 
to examine this subject, he would have found that 
the navigation of the Mississippi river has been a 
subject of negotiation for years upon years. He 
would have found that the navigation of various 
rivers throughout the world has been the subject 
of long, angry, and contested negotiation. WJfiile 
upon this point, I desire to present to the Senate 
an extract from a leading authority on this sub- 
ject. I read from Wheaton's Elements of Interna- 
tional Law: 

"The territory of the State includes the lakes, seas, 
and rivers, entirely inclosed within its limits. The rivers 
which flow through the territory also form a part of the 
domain, from their sources to their mouths, or as far as 
they flow within the territory, including the bays or estua- 
ries formed by their junction with the sea. Where a navi- 
gable river forms the boundary of coterminous States, the 
middle of the channel, or thalweg, is generally taken as the 
line of separation between the two States, the presumption 
of law being that tlie riglit of navigation is common to both ; 
but this presumption maybe destroyed by actual proof of 
prior occupancy and long undisturbed possession, giving to 
one of the riparian proprietors the exclusive title to the 
entire river. 



" Things of which the use is inexhaustible, such as the 
sea and running water, cannot be so appropriated as to ex- 
clude others from using these elements in any manner which 
does not occasion a loss or inconvenience to the proprietor. 
This is what is called an innocent use. Thus we have seen 
that the jurisdiction possessed by one nation over sounds, 
straits, and other arms of the sea leading through its own 
territory to that of another, or to other seas common to all 
nations, does not exclude others from the right of innocent 
passage through these communications. The same prin- 
ciple is applicable to rivers flowing from one State througli 
the territory of another into the sea, or into the territory of 
a third State. The right of navigating, for commercial pur- 
poses, a river which flows through the territories of differ- 
ent States, is common to al! the nations inhabiting the dif- 
ferent parts of its banks; but this riglu of innocent passage 
being what the text writers call an imperfect right, its ex- 
ercise is necessarily modified ijy the safety and convenience 
of the State affected by it, and can only be effectually se- 
cured by mutual convention regulating tlie mode of its ex- 
ercise. 

" It seems that this right draws after it the incidental 
right of using all the means which are necessary to the se- 
cure enjoyment of the principal right itself. Thus the Ro- 
man law, which considered navigable rivers as public or 
common property, declared that tlie right to the use of the 
sliores was incident to that of the water ; and that the right 
to navigate a river involved the right to moor vessels to its 
banks, to lade and unlade cargoes, &c. The public jurists 
apply this principle of the Roman civil law to the same case 
between nations, and infer the right to use the adjacent 
land for these purposes, as means necessary to the attain- 
ment of the end for which the free navigation of the water 
is permitted." — IVheaton's Elements of International Law, 
part 2, chap. 4, pp. 252, 253, 254. 

Now, what are we told ? That Louisiana, for 
which we paid $15,000,000, whose battles we 
fought, whose custom-houses, forts, arsenals, 
dock -yards, and hospitals we built, — in the exer- 
cise of the plenitude of her power, declares that she 
has control of the Mississippi, and such States 
may navigate that .stream as are on friendly rela- 
tions with her, she being the judge. Is not this 
what the dogma of secession leads us to ? We see 
where it carries us; we see in what it will end — 
litigation, war, and bloodshed. As I remarked 
before, as we approach and advance in the inves- 
tigation of the subject, we discover its enormities 
more and more. I repeat, it is the prolific mother 
of anarchy, which is the next step to despotism 
itself. The Senator from Oregon seems not to be 
apprehensive at all; and yet, before his voice has 
done reverberating in the Hall, we have the open 
declaration that they intend to exercise the con- 
trol of the navigation of the Mississippi. Would 
it not have been better for Louisiana 

Mr. LANE. I think the Senator ought to 
allow me to say a word. 

Mr. JOHNSON, of Tennessee. I do not want 
to be interrupted. I certainly mean no discour- 
tesy at all to the Senator. 

Mr. LANE. I only wish to say, in tlie way 
of explanation, that the people of New Orleans 
have had police regulations by which they liave 
collected taxes to improve their wharves ever since 
New Orleans belonged to this country. 

Mr. JOHNSON, of Tennessee. It is a very 
common thing in all cities where there are wharves, 
either on the river or ocean, to have what is com- 
monly called a wharfage tax. We understand 
that. The navigation of the high seas and rivers 
is a different thing from paying wharfage and a 
little tax to defray the expense of keeping wharves 
and docks up. We understand all about that. 
That is a very different affair from placing bat- 



17 



teries at this early day upon the banks of that 
great stream. 

Mr. LANE. That was against the common 
enemy. 

Mr. JOHNSON, of Tennessee. I did not know 
we had any enemies in these States. I thought 
we were brothers, and were entitled to carry on 
free trade from one extremity of this Confederacy 
to the other. I did not know that the people of 
Indiana and Illinois and Kentucky and Tennessee, 

foing along down that river, had got to be enemies, 
suppose, however, when we look at these things 
our minds change and vary by varying circum- 
stances. When we are candidates for the Presi- 
dency, we feel more like brothers; but when we 
have made the experiment, and signally failed, I 
suppose the enemy's line begins just at the line 
where our defeat was consummated. [Laughter 
and applause in the galleries.] 

The PRESIDING OFFICER called to order. 

Mr. JOHNSON, of Tennessee. How long has 
it been since we were prepared to go to war with 
the most formidable Power upon earth because 
she claimed the right of search .' We would not 
concede to Great Britain the i-ight of searching 
our ships on the high seas; and yet what do we 
now see ? Batteries placed upon the banks of the 
Mississippi to enforce the right of search . Do we 
not see where it will lead.' Do we not all know 
in what it Avill end .' 

I have no disposition to do the Senator from 
Oregon, or any other Senator, injustice. In this 
connection, I will say, as I have intimated be- 
fore, that I thought his attack upon me unkind 
and uncalled for. Let that be as it may, it is not 
my disposition or my intention, on this occasion, 
to do him injustice. I intend to do him full jus- 
tice. In the reply that he made to me — to which 
I yesterday referred — he gave the contradiction 
direct to v/hat I stated in the presidential canvass, 
in answer to the charge that had been made that 
you, Mr. President, and the Senator from Ore- 
gon, were disunionists; were infavor of secession; 
and that you were used by what was called the 
seceding or disunion party for the purpose of dis- 
rupting and breaking up the Government. I met 
those charges — because I believed they were un- 
true, that they were not founded in fact — in various 
places, before large assemblies, and, I thought, 
successfully, at least to my own mind, exonerated 
you and the candidate for the Vice Presidency 
from the charge. I confess it was somewhat mor- 
tifying to me, after the reply which the Senator 
made, to have to say to the people, and the coun- 
try generally, that I vindicated him against a 
charge which was true; for, when we take up his 
speech here in reply to the remarks that I made 
on that occasion, none of which had the slightest 
reference to him, involving neither his position 
before the country, nor his consistency as a legis- 
lator, we find that he took bold ground, advocat- 
ing and justifying secession, arguing, in fact, that 
it was constitutional. I felt, after that speech, 
that I was involved in inconsistency before my 
people, an inconsistency in which I ought not to 
have been involved. 

But in that same speech, in which the honora- 
ble Senator involved me in these contradictions, 



he goes on to state — and I will do him justice by 
reading his speech, for I do not want to misquote 
him: 

" But, sir, understand me ; I am not adisunionist. Iain 
for the right, and I would have it in the Union ; and if it 
cannot be obtained tliere, I would go out of the Union, and 
have that out of the Union that I could not obtain in it, 
though 1 was entitled to it." 

Mr. President, I have called the attention of the 
Senate to the paragraph of the Senator's speech 
which I have just read, in which he disavows dis- 
union sentiments; but when you take the preced- 
ing part of his speech, you find that he advocates 
the doctrine of disunion and secession almost from 
the beginning up to the sentence that I have read. 
It seems to me it is paradoxical; but that may be 
my misfortune, not his. He may be capable of 
reconciling the conflict, the seeming inconsistency 
of first advocating the doctrine of dissolution, se- 
cession, and disunion, and then at the same time 
exclaiming that he is no disunionist. I do not 
know how a Senator can be for the Union, and at 
the same time concede the right that a State has 
the authority to secede under the Constitution; 
that it is justified in seceding, and ought to secede ; 
that when it demands rights in the Union that it 
cannot get, it should go out of the Union to ob- 
tain that which could not be obtained in it. But 
let all that pass. I wish to do him no injustice; 
and therefore I desired to call attention, in the 
remarks that I am making, to his disclaimer of 
being a disunionist and a secessionist. 

Mr. President, the Senator, in the sentence I 
have quoted, assumes that South Carolina, for 
instance, had the right to secede; and he assumes, 
also, that South Carolina can obtain that out of 
the Union which she has failed to obtain in it. 
Let us raise the inquiry here: what is it, since she 
entered into this Confederacy of States, that South 
Carolina has desired or asked at the hands of the 
Federal Government, or demanded upon consti- 
tutional ground, that she has not obtained.' What 
great wrong, what great injury, has been inflicted 
upon South Carolina by her continuance in this 
Union of States.' I know it is very easy, and 
even Senators have fallen into the habit of it, to 
repeat some phrases almost as a chorus to a song; 
such as " if we cannot get our rights in the Union, 
we will go out of the Union and obtain those 
rights; that we are for the equality of the States 
in the Union, and if we cannot get it we will go 
out of the Union," I suppose to bring about that 
equality. What is the point of controversy in 
the public mind at this time.' Let us look at the 
question as it is. We know that the issue which 
has been before the country to a very great ex- 
tent, and which, in fact, has recently occupied the 
consideration of the public, is the territorial ques- 
tion. It is said that South Carolina has been re- 
fused her rights in the Union, with reference to 
thatterritorial question, and therefore she is going 
out of the Union to obtain that which she cannot 
get in it. 

Now, Mr. President, when we come to exam- 
ine this subject, liow does the matter stand.' I 
showed yesterday, in reference to the protection 
of slave property in the Territories of this Con- 
federacy, that South Carolina, in connection with 



18 



the distinguished Senator from Oregon, had voted 
expressly that no slavery code was needed; that 
no further protection was needed, so far as Con- 
gress was concerned. They decided it here in this 
body. South Carolina, by her own vote, on the 
25th day of May last, decided that she needed no 
further protection in the Territories of the United 
States, so far as Congress was concerned. The 
Senator from Oregon voted with her. That vote 
seemed to be connected with and predicated upon 
the great fact that the Supreme Court of the United 
States had decided this question ; that they had de- 
clared the Missouri compromise — in other words, 
the law excluding slavery north of 36° 30', and 
making it permissive south of 30° 30' — unconsti- 
tutional and void; and, according to our forms of 
Government, it was in fact stricken from the stat- 
ute-book by the decision of the court. They 
thereby said to the country, the supreme arbiter \ 
of the land, so made by the Constitution of the 
United States, has decided that the people have a 
right, without regard to the character or descrip- ; 
tion of their property, to carry it into all the Ter- 
ritories of the United States, and that under the 
Constitution of the United States it is protected 
there. It was said, the court having decided that 
they had a right to go there with this institution 
of slavery, and the Constitution finding it there, 
it was recognized and protected by the Constitu- 
tion of the United States. 

In this connection, permit me to go outside of 
the Senate Chamber, and state what occurred in : 
my own State. There, those who were the best 
friends of the distinguished Senator from Oregon, 
and who are ultra upon this subject, before thou- 
sands of the people of that State took the bold 
ground that they wanted no further protection 
from Congress; that the Constitution of the Uni- 
ted States and the opinion of the Supreme Court 
were all the slavery code they desired; that the 
question was settled; that the power was com- 
plete; and that protection was ample. 

In this connection, sir, we must recollect the 
decision made by the Senate upon the resolutions 
introduced by the Senator from Mississippi [Mr. 
Davis] on the 25th day of May last. On that 
day, under the solemn sanction of an oath, and 
all the formalities of legislation spread upon the 
Journals, the yeas and nays being taken, we de- 
clared, after an argument on the subject, that no 
further protection was needed at that time. The 
Senate went on and stated, in the fifth resolution — 
I give the substance, I do not pretend to repeat the 
words — that if hereafter it should become neces- 
sary to have protection of this kind, then Congress 
should give it; biit they said it was unneces.sary 
at that time. If South Carolina and the Senator 
from Oregon took this position then, what has 
transpired since that period of time that now jus- 
tifies a State in withdrawing or seceding from this 
Union, on account of Congress not doing that 
which they declared was not necessary to be done ? 

But let us take the fact as it is. South Caro- 
lina, itis said, wanted protection in theTerritories. 
I have shown that she said, herself, that further 
protection was not needed; but if it should be 
needed, then Congress should give it. But South 
Carolina — the Kingdom of South Carolina — in 



the plenitude of her power, and upon her own 
volition, without consultation with the other States 
of this Confederacy, has gone out of the Union, 
or assumed to go out. The next inquiry is: what 
does South Carolina now get, in the language of 
the distinguished Senator from Oregon, out of the 
Union that she did not get in the Union ? Is there 
a man in South Carolina to-day that wants to carry 
a single slave into any Territory we have got in 
the United States that is now unoccupied by slave 
property ? I am almost ready to hazard the as- 
sertion that there is not one. If he had not the 
power and the right to carry his slave property 
into a Territory while in the Union, has he ob- 
tained that right now by going out of the Union .' 
Has anything been obtained by violating the 
Constitution of the United States, by withdraw- 
ing from the sisterhood of States, that could not 
have been obtained in it? Can South Carolina, 
now, any more conveniently and practically carry 
slavery into the Territories than she could before 
she went out of the Union ? Then what has she 
obtained? What has she got, even upon the doc- 
trine laid down by the distinguished Senator from 
Oregon? 

But it is argued, striding over the Constitution 
and violating that comity and faith which should 
exist amongst the States composing this Confed- 
eracy, that she had a right to secede; she had a 
right to carry slaves into the Territories; and 
therefore, she will secedeand go out of the Union. 
This reasoning on the part of South Carolina is 
about as sound as that of the madman, who as- 
sumed that he had dominion over the beasts of the 
forest, and therefore that he had a, right to shear 
a wolf. His friends remonstrated with him, and, 
admitting his right to do so, inquired of him if he 
had considered the danger and the difficulty of the 
attempt. " No," said the madman, " I have not 
considered that; that is no part of my considera- 
tion; man has the dominion over the beasts of the 
forest, and therefore he has a right to shear a 
wolf; and as I have a right to do so, I will exer- 
cise it." His friends still remonstrated and ex- 
postulated, and asked him, not only " Have you 
considered the danger, the difficulty, and the con- 
sequences resulting from such an attempt; but, 
what will the shearing be worth?" "But," he 
'replied, "I have the right, and therefore I will 
shear a wolf." South Carolina has the right, 
according to the doctrine of the seceders and dis- 
unionists of this country, to go out of the Union, 
and therefore she will go out of the Union. 

And what, Mr. President, has South Carolina 
gained by going out ? It has been just about as 
profitable an operation as the shearing of the wolf 
; by the madman. Can she now carry slaves' into 
the Territories ? Does she even get any division 
of the Territories? None; she has lost all that. 
Does she establish a right? No; but by the exer- 
!ciseof this abstract right, as, contended for by 
secessionists, what has she got ? Oppression, tax- 
iation, a reign of terror over her people, as the 
result of their rashness in the exercise of this as- 
j sumed right. In what condition is her people now? 
jThey have gone out of the Union to obtain their 
rights, to maintain their liberty, to get that out of 
I tlie Union which they could not get in it ! While 



19 



they were in the Union, they were not taxed a 
million and some six or seven or eight hundred 
thousand dollars in addition to their usual ex- 
penditures, to sustain standing armies and to meet 
other expenditures which are incurred by sepa- 
ration. But still she has the right to tax her peo- 
ple; she has the right to institute a reign of terror; 
she has the right to exclude her people from the 
ballot-box; and she has exercised the right, and 
these are the consequences. She has got her rights ! 
She has gone out of the Union to be free, and has 
introduced a galling system of tyranny. She has 
gone out of the Union to be relieved from taxes, 
and has increased the burdens upon her people 
fourfold. All this is in the exercise of her right ! 

Mr. President, when we examine this subject, 
and follow it step by step, to see what is gained by 
this movement, human reason deplores the folly 
which it exhibits. The public mind seems to 
have been inflamed to madness, and in its deli- 
rium it overbears all restraint. To some it ap- 
pears that our admirable system of civil liberty 
is crumbling to pieces; that the temple of liberty 
is upheaved; that its columns are falling, and that 
notliing will remain but a general ruin; and in 
their consternation too many stand back appalled , 
and take no position for the relief of their country 
in the pending crisis. But, sir, the relations that 
we bear to ihe people of the United States, behoove 
every man, whether Senator or Representative, 
or even private citizen, to come forward as a patriot 
and lover of his country, and look at the condition 
of the country as it is. Without regard to the con- 
sequences upon myself, I have determined to meet 
this question, and to present my views to the 
country in such form as I believe to be right and 
proper. 

Sir, let us look at the contest through which 
we are passing, and consider what South Caro- 
lina, and the other Slates who have undertaken 
to secede from the Confederacy, have gained. 
What is the great difficulty which has existed in 
the public mind ? We know that, practically, the 
territorial question is settled. Then what is the 
cause for breaking vtp this great Union of States ? 
Has the Union or tlie Constitution encroached 
upon the rights of South Carolina or any other 
State.' Has this glorious Union, that was inaugu- 
rated by the adoption of the Constitution, which 
was framed by the patriots and sages of the Revo- 
lution, harmed South Carolina or any other State ? 
No; it has offended none; it has protected all. 
What is the difficulty ? We have some bad men 
in the South — the truth 1 will speak — and we have 
some bad men in the North, who want to dis- 
solve this Union in order to gratify their unhal- 
lowed ambition. And what do we find here upon 
this floor and upon the floor of the other House 
of Congress.' Words of crimination and recrim- 
ination are heard. Bad men North say provoking 
things in reference to the institutions of the South, 
and bad men and bad tempered men of the South 
say provoking and insulting things in return; and 
so goes on a war of criminaiion and recrimination 
in reference to the two sections of the country, 
and the institutions peculiar to each. Tliey be- 
come enraged and insulted, and then they are de- 
nunciatory of each other; and what is the result? 



The Abolitionists, and those who entertain their 
sentiments, abuse men of the South, and men of 
the South abuse them in return. They do not 
fight each other; but they both become offended 
and enraged. One is dissatisfied with the other; 
one is insulted by the other; and then, to seek re- 
venge, to gratify themselves, they both agree to 
make war upon the Union that never offended or 
injured either. Is this right.' What has this 
Union done .' Why should these contending par- 
ties make war upon it because they have insulted 
and aggrieved each other.' This glorious Union, 
that was spoken into existence by the fathers of 
the country, must be made war upon to gratify 
these animosities. Shall we, because we have said 
bitter things of each other which have been offens- 
ive, turn upon the Government, and seek its de- 
struction, and entail all the disastrous conse- 
quences upon commerce, upon agriculture, upon 
the industrial pursuits of the country, that must 
result from the breaking up of a great Govern- 
ment like this ? What is to be gained out of the 
Union that we cannot get in it? Anything? I 
have been zealously contending for — and intend to 
continue to contend for — every right, even to the 
ninth part of a hair* that I feel the State which I 
have the honor in part to represent is entitled to. 
I do notintend to demand anything but that which 
is right; and I will remark, in this connection, 
that there is a spirit in the country which, if it 
does not exist to a very great extent in this Hall, 
does exist in the great mass of the people North 
and South, to do what is right; and if the ques- 
tion could be taken away from politicians; if it 
could be taken away from the Congress of the 
United States, and referred to the great mass of 
the intelligent voting population of the United 
States, they would settle it without the slightest 
difficulty, and bid defiance to secessionists and 
disunionists. [Applause in the galleries.] 

The VICE PRESIDENT. ^There must be 
many persons in the galleries who have been 
warned again and again that order must be main- 
tained. 1 hope not to have occasion to refer to 
the subject again.' 

Mr. JOHNSON, ofTennessee. Mr. President, 
I have an abiding confidence in the people; and 
if it were so arranged to-day that the great mass 
of the American people could be assembled in an 
amphitheater capacious enough to contain them 
all, and the propositions which have been pre- 
sented here to preserve this Union, could be re- 
duced to a tangible shape, and submitted to them, 
politicians being left out of view, the question 
being submitted to the great mass of the people, 
it beingtheir interest to do right, they being lovers 
of their country, having to pay all, having to pro- 
duce all, having to provide all, there would be but 
one single response, " Do that which will give 
satisfaction, ample and complete, to the various and 
conflicting sections of this glorious Republic." 

But, sir, how are we situated? There are pol- 
iticians here, and throughout the land, some of 
whom want to break up the Union, to promote 
their own personal aggrandizement; some, on the 
other hand, desire the Union destroyed that sla- 
very may be extinguished. Then let me appeal 
to every patriot in the land, in view of this state 



20 



of things, to come forward and take the Govern- 
ment out of the hands of the Goths and Vandals, 
wrest it from the Philistines, save the country, 
and hand it down to our children as it has been 
handed down to us. 

I have already asked what is to be gained by 
the breaking up of this Confederacy. An appeal 
is made to the border slaveholding States to unite 
in what is commonly styled the Gulf confederacy. 
If there is to be a division of this Republic, I would 
rather see the line run anywhere than between 
the slaveholding and the non-slaveholding States, 
and the division made on account of a hostility, 
on the one hand, to the institution of slavery, 
and a preference for it, on the other; for whenever 
that line is drawn, it is the line of civil war; it is 
the line at which the overthrow of slavery begins; 
the line from which it commences to recede. Let 
me ask the border States, if that state of things 
should occur, who is to protect them in the enjoy- 
ment of their slave property? Will South Caro- 
lina, that has gone madly out, protect them ? Will 
Mississippi and Alabama and Louisiana, still 
further down towards the Gulf? Will they come 
to our rescue, and protect us? Shall we partake 
of their phrenzy, adopt the mistaken policy into 
which they have fallen, and begin the work of 
the destruction of the institution in which we are 
equally interested with them ? I have already 
said that I believe the dissolution of this Union 
will be the commencement of the overthrow and 
destruction of the institution of slavery. In a 
northern confederacy, or in a southern confeder- 
acy, or in a middle confederacy, the border slave- 
holding States will have to take care of that par- 
ticular species of property by their own strength,! 
and by whatever influence they may exert in the ] 
organization in which they may be placed. The 
Gulf States cannot, they will not, protect us. We 
shall have to protect ourselves, and perchance to 
protect them. As I remarked yesterday, my own 
opinion is, that the great desire to embrace the 
border States, as they are called, in this partic- 
ular and exclusive southern confederacy, which 
it is proposed to get up, is not that they want us 
there out of pure good will, but they want us there 
as a matter of interest; so that if they are involved 
in war, in making acquisitions of territory still 
further south, or war growing out of any other 
cause , they may have a corps de reserve, they may 
have a power behind, that can furnish them men 
and money — men that have the hearts and the souls 
to fight and meet an enemy, come from what 
quarter he may. 

What have we to gain by that? The fact that 
two taken from four leaves but two remaining, is 
not clearer to my mind that it is that the dissolu- 
tion of the Union is the beginning of the destruc- 
tion of slavery; and that if a division be accom- 
plished, as some desire, directly between the 
slaveholding and the non-slaveholding States, the 
work will be commenced most eflectually. Upon 
this point, I propose to read a short extract from 
South Carolina herself. Mr. Boyce, late a mem- 
ber of the other House, a distinguished man, a 
man of talent, and I believe a good man, and who, 
I have no doubt, in his heart this day regrets most 
deeply and sincerely the course which South Car- 



olina has taken, said, in 1851, when the same issue 
was presented: 

" Secession, separate nationality, with all its burdens, is 
no remedy. It is no redress for the past; it is no security 
for the future. It is ony a magnificent sacrifice to the pres- 
ent, witliout in any wise gaining in the future." ♦ * 
* * " For the various reasons I have stated, I object 
in as strong terms as I can, to the secession of South Car- 
olina. Such is the intensity of my conviction on this sub- 
ject, that if secession should take place — of which I have 
no idea, for I cannot believe in the existence of such a stu- 
pendous madness — I shall consider the institution of slavery 
as doomed, and that the great God, in our blindness, has 
made us the instruments of its destruction." 

He said then, that if South Carolina, in her 
madness, (but he did not believe she could ,) should 
determine upon secession, he would look upon it 
that the great God had doomed the institution of 
slavery. This is the opinion of one of the most 
distinguished and, I conscientiously believe, best 
men of South Carolina. 

But, sir, I pass on from the paragraph of the 
speech of the honorable Senator from Oregon to 
which I have referred; and as there seems to have 
been a sort of arrangement — at least it appears so 
to my mind — to make and keep up an attack on 
me, because I agreed with Mr. Boyce of South 
Carolina in this respect; because I agreed with 
many distinguished men; and because 1 advanced 
the doctrines of the fathers who formed the Re- 
public, I shall take up these Senators in the order 
in which I was attacked. Without being egotist- 
ical, without being vain, when I feel that I have 
got truth on my side, when I feel that I am stand- 
ing on principle, when I know that I have got 
facts and arguments that cannot be answered, I 
never inquire as to the difference of ability or ex- 
perience between myself and those with whom I 
have to contend. 

REPLY TO MR. DAVIS. 

The next Senator in order that made an attack 
upon me on account of my previous s]5eech was 
the distinguished Senator from Mississippi, [Mr. 
Davis,] who took occasion to do so in making his 
valedictory address to the Senate after his State 
had passed her ordinance of secession. It has 
been the case not only with that Senator, but with 
others, that an attempt has been made by innuendo, 
by indirection, by some side remark, to convey 
the impression that a certain man has a tendency 
or bearing towards Black Republicanism or Ab- 
olitionism. Sometimes gentlemen who cannot 
establish such a charge, are yet willing to make 
it, not directly, but by innuendo; to create a false 
impression on the public mind — 

" Willing to wound, but yet afraid to strike." 
If the charge can be successfully made, why not 
make it directly, instead of conveying it by innu- 
endo ? The Senator from Mississippi did not at- 
tempt to reply to my speech, did not answer my 
arguments, did not meet my authorities, did not 
controvert my facts; but after reaching a certain 
point in his own argument, he disposes of all that 
I had said in these very few words: 

" I am here confronted with a question which I will not 
argue. The position wliich I have taken necessarily brings 
me to Its consideration. Without arguing it, I will merely 
mention it. It is the right of a State to withdraw from the 
Union. The President says it is not a constitutional right. 



21 



The Senator from Ohio, [Mr. Wade,] and liis ally, the Sen- j 
ator from Tennessee, argued it as no right at all." 

Is that the way for a Senator, a distinguished 
Senator, an Ajax of his peculiar sect — for when 
we come to examine this doctrine of secession, 
it is only broad enough to found a sect upon; it 
is not comprehensive enough, it has not scope 
enough, to found a great national party on — to 
notice the arguments of others .' The Senator from 
Mississippi would not argue the right of seces- 
sion. I say, that if any government be organized 
hereafter, in which this principle of secession is 
recognized, it will result in its destruction and 
overthrow. But the Senator says that the Sen- 
ator from Ohio, [Mr. Wade,] and " his ally from 
Tennessee," regard secession as no right at all; 
and by that statement the whole argument is an- 
swered. What is the idea here? Let us talk 
plainly, though courteously and respectfully. 
What was the idea which this remark was calcu- 
lated, if not intended, to convey.' I am free to 
say, that I think it was intended as well as calcu- 
lated, to convey the impression that the Senator 
from Tennessee was an ally of Mr. Wade, of 
Ohio, who was a Republican, and the whole speech 
of the Senator from Tennessee, the authorities, 
the facts, and the arguments, are all upturned by 
that single allusion. Thank God, there is too 
much good sense and intelligence in this country, 
to put down any man by an innuendo or side re- 
mark like that. But, sir, so far as the people 
whom I have the honor in part to represent are 
concerned, I stand above innuendoes of that kind. 
They have known me from my boyhood up. 
They understand my doctrines and my principles, 
in private and in public life. They have tried me 
in every position in which it was in their power 
to place a public servant, and they, to-day, will 
not say that Andrew Johnson ever deceived or 
betrayed them. In a public life of twenty-five 
years, they have never deserted or betrayed me; 
and God willing, I will never desert or betray them. 
The great mass of the people of Tennessee know 
that 1 am for them; they know that I have advo- 
cated those great principles and doctrines upon 
which the perpetuity of this Government depends; 
they know that I have periled my all, pecuniarily 
and physically, in vindication of their rights and, 
their interests. Little innuendoes, thrown off in j 
snarling moods, fall harmless at my feet. 

It was said that I was the ally of the Senator 
from Ohio. I turn to the doings of the committee 
of thirteen to show who were allies there. I do 
not inquire what a man's antecedents have been 
when there is a great struggle to preserve the ex- 
istence of the Government; but my first inquiry 
is, are you for preserving this Government; are 
you for maintaining the Constitution upon which 
It rests. If Senator Wade, or Senator anybody 
else, is willing to come up to this great work, 
either by amending the Constitution of the Uni- 
ted States, or passing laws that will preserve and 
perpetuate this great Union, I am his ally and he 
is mine; and I say to every Senator; to every 
member of the House of Representatives ; to every 
man that loves his country throughout the length 
and breadth of this great Confederacy, if you are 
for preserving this Union on its great and funda- 



mental principles, I am your ally, without refer- 
ence to your antecedents, or to what may take 
place hereafter. I say to all such men, come for- 
ward, and, like gallant knights, let us lock our 
shields and make common cause for this glorious 
people. If I were to indulge in a similar kind of 
innuendo, by way of repartee, where would the 
Senator from Mississippi find himself? In the 
committee of thirteen, a resolution was introduced 
by the distinguished Senator from New York, 
[Mr. Seward,] — who, I must say, since this ques- 
tion has sprung up, has given every indication of 
a desire for reconciliation and for compromise, 
and'of a disposition to preserve the Government, 
that a man occupying his position could do — to 
this effect: 

" Resolved, That the following article be, and the same 
is hereby, proposed and submitted as an amendment to the 
Constitution of the United States, to be valid, to all intents 
and purposes, as a part of said Constitution, when ratified 
by tlie J-,egislatures of three fourths of the States : 

" 1. No amendment shall be made to the Constitution 
which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abol- 
ish, or interfere, within any State, with the domestic insti- 
tutions tliereof, including that of persons held to labor or 
service by the laws of said State." 

That was a proposition which was calculated, 
to a very great extent, to allay the apprehensions 
and the fears that have been entertained in the 
South ill reference to the institution of slavery. 
Why do I say so ? We know what the argument 
has been before the southern mind. It has been: 
first, that the northern anti-slavery party wanted 
to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia, as 
an entering wedge; next, to exclude it from the 
Territories, following up the attack upon slavery; 
but these points were looked upon as of minor 
importance; they were looked upon as outposts, 
as the prelude to an interference with the institu- 
tion within the States, which lias been supposed 
to be the great end and the great consideration. 
Do you not know this to be the argument: that 
they were merely taking these positions as enter- 
ing wedges to an interference with the institution 
of slavery in the States ? Such is the real ques- 
tion, and such it will remain, the territorial ques- 
tion being substantially settled. What does Mr. 
Seward, who has acquired so much notoriety by 
his " irrepressible conflict," say? Hecomeshere 
and proposes an amendment to the Constitution, 
which puts an estoppel upon his " irrepressible 
conflict" doctrine. He is willing to make it per- 
petual, so that the institution cannot be interfered 
with in the States by any future amendment of the 
Constitution. That is Mr. Seward's measure. 
Upon the adoption of that resolution, I believe 
every member of the committee voted for it, save 
two. The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Davis] 
voted for it; Mr. Seward voted for it; and Mr. 
Wade, of Ohio, voted for it. Whose ally is he? 
Here we find Wade and Seward and Davis, and 
the whole committee, with the exception of two, 
in favor of amending the Constitution so that the 
institution of slavery cannot be interfered with 
in the Stales, making that provision irrepealable 
by any number of States that may come into tke 
Confederacy. Who were " allies " then ? 

But, Mr. President, recurring to what I said 
yesterday, there are two parties in this country 



22 



that want to break up the Government. Who 
are they ? The nullifiers proper of the South , the ] 
secessionists, or disunionists — for I use them all 
as synonymous terms. There is a portion of them 
who, per se, desire the disruption of the Govern- j 
ment for purposes of their own aggrandizement. 
I do not charge upon them that they want to j 
breakup theGovernmentforthe purpose of affect- 
ing slavery; yet I charge that the breaking up of 
the Government would have that effect; the result , 
would be the same. Who else is for breaking j 
up this Government.? I refer to some bad men in j 
the North. There is a set of men there who are i 
called Abolitionists, and they want to break up ; 
the Government. They are disunionists; they are 
secessionists; they are nullifiers. Sir, the Ab- 
olitionists and the distinguished Senator from 
Mississippi and his party both stand in the same ! 
attitude, to attain the same end, a dissolution of i 
this Union; the one party believing that it will j 
result in their own aggrandizement South, and the | 
other believing that it will result in the overthrow j 
of the institution of slavery. Who are the dis- 
unionists of the North? Who are the "allies " of 
the distinguished Senator from Mississippi? We ! 
find that a resolution was adopted at the anniver- 
sary of the Massachusetts Anti-Slavery Society, 
convened in Boston, in these words: 

"Resolved, That tlie one great issue before tlie country 
is the dissolution of the Union, in comparison with which 
ali other issues with llie slave power are as dust in the bal- 
ance ; therefore we give ourselves to the work of annulling 
this covenant with death, as essential to our own inno- 
cency, and the speedy and everlasting overthrow of the 
slave system."' 

This resolution was passed by the Abolition 
anti-slavery society of Massachusetts. They 
think a dissolution of the Union would result 
in the destruction of slavery, and absolve them 
from this " covenant with death," and attest their 
innocency,as far as the Government is concerned. 
On that, we find that Mr. Wendell Phillips made 
the following remarks: 

"I entirely accord with the sentiments of th.at last reso- 
lution. I think all we have to do is to prepare the public 
mind by the daily and hourly presentation of the doctrine 
of disunion. Events vvhich,'fortunately for us, the Govern- 
ment itself, and other parties, are producing with unexam- 
pled rapidity, are our best aid." 
« 

Again: in reply to a remark made by Mr. Gid- 
dings, respecting the dissolution of the Union, the 
Boston Liberator says: 

"Mr. Giddings says truly, that the dissolution of the Union 
has long been held up as a scare-crow by the South ; but 
when he adds that the friends of liberty never demanded 
it, his statement is untrue, unless he means to confine it 
to his political associates, who are but compromisers at 
last. We demand nothing short of a dissolution, absolute 
and immediate. The Union which was founded by our 
fathers, was cemented by the blood of the slave, and eflected 
through his immolation."' 

And still further: William Lloyd Garrison, at 
a Fourth of July celebration, at Farmingham, 
Massachusetts, declared: 

"Let us, then, to-day, rejecting as wild and chimerical all 
suggestions, propositions, and contrivances for restraining 
slavery in its present limits, while extending constitu- 
tional protection to it in fifteen of the States, register our 
pledge anew before lleaven and the world, that we will do 
what in us lies to etlect the eternal overthrow of this blood- 
stained Union ; tliat tlius our enslaved countrymen may 



find a sure deliverance, and we may no longer be answer- 
able for their blood." 

The Union is to be overthrown by way of get- 
ting clear of the "great sin of slavery." Mr. 
J. B. Swassey, on the same occasion, said: 

" In the olden times, 1 was what was called an anti- 
slavery Whig; but, Mr. President, it has come to my mind, 
like a conviction, that it is utterly in vain to hope that we 
can live under such a Government as this,with our profes- 
sions, and with our pretended love of freedom and right. 
Why the thing is impossible. There cannot, in the nature 
of things, be any union between the principles of liberty 
and slavery. Tliere never has been any union, except by 
the subjugation of the principles of liberty to those of des- 
potism. For one, sir, I believe that the duty of every true 
man is to take the ground of secession." 

Again: Wendell Phillips, in a speech at Boston 
on the 20th of January, argued that disunion was 
desirable, because it would abolish slavery. He 
also argued that the North would gain by dis- 
union, and used the following language: 

" Sacrifice everything for the Union.' God forbid! Sac- 
rifice everything to keep South Carolina in it.' Rather 
build a bridge of gold, and pay her toll over it. Let her 
march off with banners and trumpets, and we will speed the 
parting guests. Let her not stand upon the order of her 
going, but go at once. Give her the forts and arsenals and 
sub-treasuries, and lend her jewels of silver and gold, and 
Egypt will rejoice that she has departed." 

He looks upon disunion as the beg:inning of the 
destruction and overthrow of the institution of 
slavery. Then, when we come to talk about "al- 
lies," whose allies are these gentlemen? Whose 
allies are the Abolitionists of the North, if they 
are not the allies of the secessionists and disun- 
ionists of the South? Are they not all laboring 
and toiling to accomplish the same great end, the 
overthrow of this great nation of ours ? Their 
object is the same. They are both employing, 
to some extent, the same means. Here is Wen- 
dell Phillips; here is Garrison; here is the anti- 
slavery society of Massachusetts; and all, in the 
very same point of view, the allies of the distin- 
guished Senator from Mississippi and his coad- 
jutors; all in favor of disruptitig and breaking 
down this Union, with the view of destroying the 
institution of slavery itself. " Allies laboring to 
destroy the Government!" Who else are labor- 
ing to destroy it but the disunionists and seces- 
sionists of the South, and Garrison and Phillips, 
and the long list that might be enumerated at the 
North ? Here they stand, presenting an unbroken 
front, to destroy this glorious Union, which was 
made by our fathers. 

Mr. President, I have alluded to this subject of 
" allies " in order to show who is engaged in this 
unholy and nefarious work of breaking up this 
Union. We find first the run-mad Abolitionists 
of the North. They are secessionists; they are 
for disunion; they are for dissolution. When we 
turn to the South we see the red-hot disunionists 
and secessionists engaged in the same work. I 
think it comes with a very bad grace from them 
to talk about the " allies " of others who are try- 
ing to save the Union and preserve the Constitu- 
tion. 

*I went back yesterday and showed that South 
Carolina had held this doctrine of secession at a 
very early day, a very short time after she entered 
into the Articles ofConfederation, and after she had 



23 



entered the Union by which and through which 
the independence of the country was achieved. 
What else do we find at a very early day ? Go 
to Massachusetts during the war of 1812, and 
the Hartford convention, and there you will find 
men engaged in this treasonable and unhallowed 
work. Even in 1845, Massachusetts, in mani- 
festing her great opposition to the annexation of 
Texas to the United States, passed a resolution 
resolving herself out of the Union . She seceded ; 
she wenl off by her own act, because Texas was 
admitted into the Union. Thus we find South 
Carolina and Massachusetts taking the lead in this 
secession movement. We find the Abolitionists 
proper of the North shaking the right hand of 
fellowship with the disunionists of the South in 
this work of breaking up the Union; and yet we 
hear intimations here that Senators from the South 
who are not secessionists are Black Republican 
allies! If I were compelled to choose either--! 
would not wish to be compelled to make a choice I 
— but if I were compelled to be either, having the 
privilege of choosing, I would rather be a black , 
Republican than a red one. I think the one is 
much more tolerable than the other. If red repub- ' 
licanism is ever to make its way into this coun- : 
try, it is making its way in this disunion and se- , 
cession movement that is now going on; for we | 
see that right along with the sentiment of seces- [ 
sion the reign of terror prevails. Everything is : 
carried away by it, while the conservative men of 
the country are waiting for the excited tempest to 
pass. Itis now sweeping over the country. Every- 
thing is carried by usurpation, and a reign of 
terror follows along in its wake. 

I am charged with being " an ally" of the Sen- 
atorfrom Ohio ! I, who, from my earliest infancy, 
or from the time I first comprehended principle, 
down to the present time, have always stood bat- 
tling for the same great principles that I contend 
for now! My people know me; they have tried 
me; and your little innuendoes and your little in- 
directions will not alarm them, even if your infu- 
riated seceding southern men dare to intimate that 
I am an ally of Mr. Wade. The Senator charges 
me with being " an ally;" while he and the lead- 
ers of Abolitionism are uniting all their energies 
to break up this gloriousUnion. I an ally ! Thank 
God, I am not in alliance with Giddings, with 
Phillips, with Garrison, and the long list of those 
who are engaged in the work of destruction, and 
in violating the Constitution of the United Slates. 
So much, Mr. President, in regard to the argu- 
ment about allies. I am every man's ally when 
he acts upon principle. I have laid down, as the 
cardinal point in my political creed, that, in all 
questions that involve principle, especially where 
there was doubt, I would pursue principle; and in 
the pursuit of a great principle I never could reach 
a wrong conclusion. If, in the pursuit of princi- 
ple, in trying to reach a correct conclusion,! find 
mystlf by the side of another man who is pursu- 
ing the same principle, or acting upon the same 
line of policy, I extend to him my assistance, and 
I ask his in return. 

But the Senator from Mississippi, in his reply 
to me, also said: 
"I was reading, a short time ago, an extract wliich re- 



ferred to the time wlien ' we'— I suppose it means Tennes- 
see — would take tiie position whicli it was said to be an 
absurdity for Soutli Carolina to hold ; and Tennessee still 
was put, in the same speech, in llie attitude ol a great ob- 
jector against the exercise of the right of secession. Is 
there anything in her history which tfius places hfri" Ten- 
nessee, born of secession, rocked in the cradle of revolu- 
tion, taking her position before she was matured, and claim- 
ing to be a State because she had violently severed her con- 
nection with North Carolina, and through an act of seces- 
sion and revolution claimed then to be a State." 

I suppose it was thought that this would be a 
poser; that it would be conclusive; and as Ten- 
nessee was "born of secession, rocked in the 
cradle of revolution," I was estopped; that my 
lips were hermetically sealed, so far as related to 
anything I could give utterance to in opposition 
to this heresy. When we come to examine the 
history of that subject, we find the Senator has 
fallen into just as great an error as he did in his 
allusion to allies. Tennessee had her birth not in 
secession — very far from it. The State of Frank- 
land had its origin in that way. They attempted 
to separate themselves from the Slate of North 
Carolina. When was that.' In 1784. Peace was 
made in 1783; but in 1784—1 read from Wheel- 
er's History of North Carolina: 

"In 1784, the General Assembly, in April, at Hillsboro', 
among other acts for the relief of the General Government, 
ceded her western lands, and authorized her delegation in 
Congress to execute a deed, provided Congress would 
accept this offer within two years. 

"This act, patriotic and self-sacrificing, was worthy of 
the State ; and although not then accepted by Congress, 
was the real source of the civil commotion which we are 
about to record." 

What was that civil commotion ? The pioneers 
of that country had suffered great hardships, and 
I they viewed with suspicion this act of 1784. On 
j the 24th of August of that year, they held a con- 
vention at Jonesboro', and resolved to send a per- 
\ son to Congress to urge the acceptance of the offer 
I of North Carolina. "But I will read from this 
I history: 

j " The General Assembly of North Carolina met at New- 
! born on the 22d October, 1784, and repealed the act of the 
I former session, in consequence of which the convention at 
' Jonesboro' broke up in confusion." * * * * 
" The spirit of the people was roused. On December 4, 
1784, a convention of five delegates from eacli county mei 
at Jonesboro'. John Sevier was made president of this 
convention. They formed a constitution for the State of 
Frankland, which was to be rejected or received by another 
body, ' fresh from the people,' to meet at Greenville in No- 
vember, 1785. This body met at the time and place ap- 
pointed ; the constitution was ratitied ; Langdon Carter was 
Speaker of the Senate ; William Cage, Speaker of the 
House of Commons. John Sevier was chosen Governor; 
David Campbell, Joshua Gist, and John Henderson, judges 
of the superior coui t. Other officers, civil and military, 
were appointed. 

"The General Assembly of the State of Frankland, by a 
communication signed by both Speakers, informed Richard 
Caswell, Esq., Governor of North Carolina, tliat the peo- 
ple of the counties of Washington, Sullivan, and Greene, 
had declared themselves sovereign, and independent of the 
State of North Carolina. 

" Governor Caswell was a soldier and a statesman. He 
was not of a temper to brook such high-handed measures. 
He issued, on the 25th of April, 1785, his proclamation 
against this lawless thirst for power." * * * * 

" Biu the State of Frankland did not heed this warning, 
so properly expressed, and so dignified in its character 
and tone. It proceeded to erect new counties, levy taxes, 
appropriate money, Ibrin treaties with the Indians, and 
exercise all the power and prerogatives of a sovereign 
State." *»**-.***' 



24 



"The scarcity of money was severely felt. The salary 
of the Governor was £200 annually; ajiidge £150; the 
treasurer £40; to be paid from the treasury. The taxes 
were to be paid into tlie treasury, in the circulating medium 
of Franldand, such as they liad, namely : good flax linen 
ten hundred, at three shillings and sixpence per yard ; good 
clean beaver skins, six shillings each ; racoon and fox skins, 
at one shilling and three pence ; deer skins, six shillings; 
bacon, at six pence per pound; tallow, at six pence; good 
whisky, at two shillings and six pence a gallon. 

" This has given rise to some humor at the expense of 
the State ofFrankland. It was referred to in debate inonr 
House of Commons, 1827, by H. C. Jones, and in Congress 
some years ago by Hon. Daniel Webster; which was re- 
plied to by Hon. Hugh L. White. It was pleasantly stated 
that the salaries of the Governor and judges were paid in 
fox skins, and the fees of the sheriff and constables in mink 
skins, and that the Governor, the sheriffs, and constables 
were compelled to receive the skins at the established 
price. 

" Even this primitive currency was, by the ingenuity of 
man, extensively counterfeited, by sewing racoon tails to 
tlie opossum skins — opossum skins being worthless and 
abundant, and racoon skins were valued by law at one 
shilling and three pence." ***** 

" The Geheral Assembly of North Carolina, assembled 
at Newbern, in November, 1785, passed an act to bury in 
oblivion the conduct ofFrankland, provided they returned 
to their allegiance, and appointed elections to be held in 
the diffeient counties for members to the General Assembly 
of North Carolina, and also appointed civil and military 
officers to support those already appointed. The next year, 
1786, presented a strange state of affairs ; two empires ex- 
tended at the same time over the same territory and over 
the same people. 

" Courts were held by both Governments, military offi- 
cers appointed by both, to exercise the same powers. John 
Tipton headed the party for North Carolina, and John 
Sevier the Frankland party."* * * * * 

" The next year taxes were imposed by both administra- 
tions; but the people most in?ioccn?h/ pretended that they 
did not know to whom to pay ; so paid to neither. Thus 
deprived of one of the chief means of government, the 
affairs of Frankland were approaching to its end. Tipton 
and Sevier were both residents of Washington county. 
Sevier was a brave soldier; he had proved his valor on 
King's mountain ; but he was seduced by the allurements 
of office and ambition — 

" The sin whereby the angels fell.' " 

" He applied to Dr. Franklin for advice and support; to 
the Governor (Matthews) of Georgia, and to Virginia ; from 
none did he receive any aid or advantage. He realized 
with fearful truth, the fable of Gay — 

" The child who many fathers share, 
Hath rarely known a father's care. 
He who on many doth depend 
Will rarely ever find a friend." 

All this shows, Mr. President, that the State 
ofFrankland took its origin in 1784. A govern- 
ment was recognized, and it continued until Sep- 
tember, 1787. The Legislature that year met at 
Greenville, the very town in which I live. 

"In September, 1787, the Legislature of Frankland met 
for the last time at Greenville. John Menifee was Speaker 
of the Senate and Charles Robinson Speakerof the House. 
They authorized the election of two Representatives to 
attend the Legislature of North Carolina, and one of the 
judges of Frankland was elected (David Campbell) and her 
Treasurer (Landon Carter) the other. 

" Had the party of Sevier accepted the liberal, fair, and 
just proposition of Governor (^aswi'll, in 1785, as stated 
previously, how much pain and trouble would have been 
spared to this country, and how much personal suffering 
to himself? With all his virtues, honesty, and former pub- 
lic service, he was at this time a doomed man. 

" On the return of the members from tlie General Assem- 
bly at Tarboro', in February, 1788, it was soon understood 
that Frankland was no more. 

"An execution against the estate of General Sevier had 
been placed in the hands of the sheriff, and levied on his 
negroes on Nolichucky river. These were removed for 
safe keeping to the house of Colonel Tipton." 

" Brave in his character, obstinate and headstrong, Sevier 



raised one hundred and fifty men, and marched to Tip- 
ton's house, on Watauga river, eight miles east of Jones- 
boro'. Tipton had information of Sevier's design only time 
enough to obtain the aid of some fifteen friends, who were 
with him on Sevier's arrival. 

" Sevier, with his troops and a small cannon, demanded 
an unconditional surrender of Tipton and all in his house. 
Tipton had barricaded the house ; and in reply to the un- 
ceremonious demand, sent him word ' to fire, and be d — d.' 
He then sent a written summons to surrender. This letter 
Tipton forwarded forthwith to the colonel of the county, for 
aid. This aid, through Robert and Thomas Love, was 
promptly afforded. The house was watched closely. A 
man by the name of Webb was killed, a woman wounded 
in the shoulder, and a Mr. Vann. VVhile, from extreme 
cold, Sevier's guards were at the fire, a large reinforcement 
from Sullivan county, under Maxwell and Pemberton, 
passed the guard, and joined the beleaguered household. 
The moment the junction was formed they sallied out with 
shouts ; a tremor seized the troops of Sevier, who fled in 
all directions at the first fire of Tipton. Pugh, the high 
sheriff of Washington, was mortally-wounded, and many 
taken prisoners. Sevier himself escaped ; his two sons, 
James and John, were prisoners." * * * * 

'• Judge Spencer, one of the judges of the State of North 
Carolina, holding court at Jonesboro', issued a bench-war- 
rant against Governor Sevier for high treason, (1788.) 

" In October, Colonels Tipton, Love, and others, appre- 
hended Sevier, at the house of Mrs. Brown, near Jones- 
boro'. Tipton was armed, and swore that ho would kill 
Sevier ; and Sevier really thought he would do so. Tipton 
was, however, with much exertion, pacified. Handcuffs 
were placed upon Governor Sevier, and he was carried to 
Jonesboro'. From thence he was carried, under strong 
guard, toMorganton, in Burke county. North Carolina, and 
delivered to William Morrison, the sheriff" of Burke. 

" As he passed through Burke, General Charles McDow- 
ell and Gcncfal Joseph McDowell (the latter who was with 
him in the battle of King's Mountain, and fought by his 
side) became his securities for a few days, until he could 
see some friends. He returned punctually, and upon his 
own responsibility the sheriff allowed him time to procure 
bail. His two sons, with friends, came to Morganton 
privately, and under their escort he escaped. 

" Thus the career of the first and last Governor of Frank- 
land terminated. But with all his defects, John Sevier had 
m'any virtues. He was fearless to a fault; kind to his 
friends ; and hospitable to all. This gave him great weight 
among the people ; and although in the General Assembly 
of North Carolina, (Fayetteville,) in 1788, general oblivion 
and pardon were extended to all concerned in the late re- 
volt, John Sevier was especially excepted in the act, and 
debarred from all offices of trust, honor, or profit. 

" The next year (1789) so great a favorite with the people 
was Sevier, that he was elected from Greene, to represent 
that county in the Senate of the General Assembly of North 
Carolina. He appeared at Fayetteville at the time appointed 
for the meeting of the Legislature, (second Monday of No- 
vember.) 

"Such was the sense of his worth, or his contrition for 
the past, that the Legislature passed early, an act repealing 
the section disqualifying him from any office ; and on taking 
the oath of allegiance, he was allowed his seat. Tims were 
the difliculties settled. 

" North Carolina had ever been willing to allow her 
daughter to set up for herself when of lawful age and under 
proper restrictions. Cherishing this feeling, she was never 
unjust towards her fair and lovely offspring. 

" On the 25th of February, 1790, as authorized by a pre- 
vious act of the General Assembly, passed in the year 1789, 
Samuel Johnston and Benjamin Hawkins, Senators in Con- 
gress, executed a deed to the United States in the words of 
the cession act; and on the 2d of April of that year. Con- 
gress accepted the deed, and Tennessee was born. 

" By proclamation, dated September 1, 1790, Governor 
Martin announced that the Secretary of State for the Uni- 
ted States had transmitted to him a copy of the act of Qon- 
gress, accf'pting the cession of North Carolina for this dis- 
trict of the western territory, and the inhabitants of said 
district ' would take due notice thereof, and govern them- 
selves accordingly.' " 

John Sevier was brave and patriotic, a man 
loved by the people; but he had fallen into this 
error of secession or separation from the State of 



25 



North Carolina that I have called your attention 
to here in the history of that Stale We find that 
this doctrine of secession could not even be sus- 
tained by him, with his great popularity and with 
the attachment the people had for him. Instead 
of Tennessee having her origin or her birth in 
secession, the precise reverse is true. The State of 
Frankland had its birth in an attempt atdisutiion 
and was rocked to death in the cradle of secession; 
and its greatdefender and founder atthat time, not- 
withstanding his great popularity and the attach- [ 
ment the people had for him, was lodged in irons. 
That is wnere secession carried him, with all his 
popularity, with all his patriotism, with all the at- 
tachment the people had for him. Yes, sir, this 
nefarious, this blighting, this withering doctrine | 
of secession ended by placing that distinguished 
man in irons. 1 

What next occurred ? North Carolina passed 
a law for general pardon and oblivion for all those 
that had been engaged in this movement, with the 
exception of this great man, John Sevier. His , 
name is even now venerated in the section of the 
country where I live; but, with all his talents and 
popularity, this inftimous, this diabolical, this hell- 
born and hell-bound doctrine of secession carried 
him into chains. The State of Frankland had 
expired, rocked to death in the cradle of seces- 
sion, and he went back to Greene county, and 
was elected a member of the Legislature of North ! 
Carolina. In passing this general oblivion and i 
pardon, he was made an exception; and he was I 
not permitted to take his seat in the Legislature 
until the exception was removed. It was removed , 
and he took his seat in the Legislature of North 
Carolina. Frankland had expired; it was no more; 
and yet we see the odious weight that was heaped \ 
upon him by this nefarious doctrine of secession. : 

Then what follows, Mr. President? When we , 
turn to the history, we find that North Carolina 
then made her cession act, completed it in 1790, 
and ceded the territory to the United States. A 
territorial government was established. General 
Washington himself appointed the first officers 
in the Territory, which was then styled " the 
Territory southwest of the river Ohio." In 1794, 
the Council or Legislature of thatTerritory elected 
James White the first delegate to the Congress of 
the United States from the Territory southwest of 
the river Ohio — not Frankland or Franklin, for 
that is numbered with the things that were, but 
are not. Even with the popularity of the name 
of Dr. Franklin, it was consigned to oblivion, and 
now sleeps with the things that were. In 1794, 
the delegate to represent the Territory made his 
appearance here, and took his seat. In 1796, the 
constitution v/as formed; and then it was that Ten- 
nessee began her existence. The peace was made 
in 1783, and in 1796 Tennessee formed her consti- 
tution and applied for admission into this Union. 
Then it was thatTennessee was spoken into exist- 
ence. She did not pass through this ordeal of 
secession; this probation of disunion. She germ- 
inated upon proper principles. The Territory was 
first organized by Congress after the death of the 
organization called Frankland; and in 1796, the 
people of Tennessee formed their constitution, and 
were admitted into the Union as a State. And, sir, 



who came into the Union with her when she was 
admitted as a State? Andrew Jackson. Itmayhaye 
been that his early knowledge of the country, it 
may have been that his early information upon the 
subject, made him understand and appreciate ever 
afterwards the value of the Union. When Ten- 
nessee was ushered into thisfamily of States, asan 
equal member of the Confederacy, General Jack- 
son took his seat as her Representative. The Sen- 
ator from Mississippi said that Tennessee was 
" born in secession; rocked in the cradle of revo- 
lution. " Sir, she has many fond recollections of 
the Revolution ; but with all her revolutionary char- 
acter, her people have never attempted secession. 
General Jackson first represented her in Congress 
when she came into the Union; she brought him 
to the notice of the people of the United States as a 
public man. In 1833, when an attempt somewhat 
similar to the present was made, he was President 
of the United States; and it is unnecessary for me 
to relate what his views of secession were then. 
It is not necessary for me to refer to the acts of 
General Jackson in 1833. And now, sir, not in- 
tending to disparage others, but to give utterance 
to my conscientious belief, 1 must say that if such 
a man as Andrew Jackson were President of the 
United States at the present time, before this mo- 
ment steps would have been taken which would 
have preserved us a united people without the 
sheddingof blood, without making war. I believe 
that if Andrew Jackson were President of the 
United States, this glorious Union of ours would 
still be intact. Perhaps it might be jarred a little 
in some places, but not sufficiently to disturb the 
harmony and general concord of the whole. That 
is my opinion. I do not say it to disparage oth- 
ers; but I believe that this would have been the 
case, if he had been President, pursuing the policy 
which I feel certain he would have pursued in 
such an emergency. 

Tennes.see came into the Union in 1796. She 
was the third State that entered the Confederacy 
after the old thirteen ratified the Constitution. 
She was in this Union before Alabama, before 
Mississippi, before Louisiana, before Florida had 
an existence. There was a Union then, and she 
was in it. She has been in it ever since; and she 
has continued to contribute her money, her men, 
and her blood, to the defense of the flag of the 
Union ; and though these other States may go out, 
I trust in God that she will still remain in the po- 
sition she occupied before they were spoken into 
existence. We have been told that the Union is 
broken up — that it is already dissolved. Why, 
sir, according to the Constitution, nine States 
formed the Government; and provision was made 
for taking in new States. Taking in a State or 
taking out a State does not disturb the Union. It 
was a Union before the State came in; it is a Union 
after it goes out. We got along very well before 
these States came in ; and where is the great injury 
now to result to Tennessee because they propose 
to go out? 

I took occasion, in my former remarks, to call 
the attention of the Senate, and of my constituents 
to the extent that I have the honor to represent 
them, to the kind of government that was likely 
to be formed by the seceding States, and the coun- 



26 



try they might acquire after they did secede. In 
relation to this, the Senator from Mississippi said: 

" But the Senator found somewhere, I believe in Georgia, 
a newspaper article wliich sug<;ested the advantages of a 
constitutional monarchy. Does the Senator believe there 
is any considerable number of people in any of the States 
who favor the establishment of a constitutional monarchy .'" 

The Senator from Georgia [Mr. Iverson] felt 
called upon to say something in the same con- 
nection. He said: 

"As allusion has been made by the Senator from Missis- 
sippi to an article which appeared in a paper in my own 
town, and about which a good deal of noise has been made, 
and which was referred to by the Senator from Tennessee, 
in his celebrated speech, the other day, as evidence that 
there was a party in the South in favor of a constitutional 
monarchy" — 

He went on to state that that idea was suggested 
in some paper, he could not exactly tell how, but 
it was not by the editor, and it did not amount to 
much. I did not refer to a single paper; but I made 
various extracts from newspapers and speeches, 
simply as surface indications, as symptoms of 
what lay below, and what was intended to be the 
result. 1 referred to the Charleston Mercury; I 
referred to other papers; I referred to the speeches 
of distinguished men, some of them leaders in this 
movement. Is it not apparent, now, that unless 
the public mind is aroused, unless the people are 
put on the alert, thei-e is a design to establish a 
government upon the principles of a close cor- 
poration .' Can any one that has the least sagacity ) 
be so unobservant as not to see what is going on 
in the South .' It is apparent to all. They seem ! 
to unite in setting out with the proposition that j 
the new confederacy shall exclude every State 
which is not slaveholding, for the reason that those 
States which are interested in slaves should have | 
the exclusive control and management of them. 
Here is a great family of States, some free and 
some slave, occupying, in one sense, the same 
relation to each other that individuals in tlie com- ! 
munity do to one another. The proposition is I 
started to form a government of States exclu- 
sively interested in slaves. That excludes all the ' 
free States. Is the argument good? Has not 
slavery been secure heretofore in the Union with 
non-slaveholding States; and will not our geo- 
graphical and physical position be just the same 
after the present Union is dissolved ? Where does 
the ai-gument carry us.' We must have a confed- 
ei'acy now composed of slave States exclusively. 
When we have excluded the free States, and we 
come to make a new government, does not the 
same argument apply that we must have a gov- 
ernment lo be controlled and administered by that 
description of persons among us who are exclu- 
sively interested in slaves.' If you cannot trust 
a free State in the confederacy, can you trust a 
non-slaveholder in a slaveholding State to control 
the question of slavery .' Where does your argu- 
ment carry you ? ^/e see where they ai-e drift- 
ing; and, as a faithful sentinel upon the watch- 
tower, I try to notify the people and sound the 
tocsin of alarm. If this idea be not carried out, 
it will be because the public feeling, the public 
opinion, is aroused against it. 

I alluded yesterday to the fact that the freemen 
of the State of South Carolina have not been per- 



I mitted to vote for a President since it was a State. 
There is a great terror and dread of the capacity 
! of the people to govern themselves. In South 
I Carolina, when the ordinance was passed to with- 
draw from the Union, did the convention trust the 
people to )>ass their judgment upon it.' Were 
they consulted.' Did they indorse it.' Have they 
passed theirjudgmentupon it to this day.' Taking 
the language of Mr. Boyce as an index of their 
feeling, I have no ntiore doubt than I have of my 
existence that if this reign of terror subsides, and 
the hearts of the people of South Carolina can be 
gotten at, it will be found that a majority of them 
disapprove and repudiate what has been done 
there. What do we find in the State of Georgia .' 
There the proposition was moved to submit the 
ordinance to the people; and were the people con- 
sulted.' The vote was 138 to 116, I think. It 
shows a great division. Did they submit it to the 
people.' Oh, no. I know something of the people 
of the State of Georgia; and I believe this day, if 
that seceding ordinance could be submitted to the 
voting population of Georgia, and the question be 
fully canvassed and fairly understood, they would 
repudiate and put it down. Go to Florida: were 
the people consulted there.' Not at all. Look to 
Alabama; look to the arguments made there in 
the convention. It was said, our power is ample; 
we ntiust consummate this thing, and not let the 
people pass upon it. Louisiana refused to refer 
the matter to the people. The people have not 
been consulted. A reign of terror has been insti- 
tuted. States have been called upon to make large 
appropriations of money to buy arms and muni- 
tions of war; for what end.' The idea has been: 
" we can, almost with the speed of lightning, run 
States out of the Union without consulting the 
people; and then, if they dare resist, we have got 
an army, we have got the money to awe them 
mto submission." These gentlemen are very fear- 
ful of coercion, exceedingly alarmed at the word 
" coerce;" but when you attempt to interpose and 
stop their career, they do not know of any other 
tenti but coercion. Look at the dispatch which 
Governor Pickens sent to Mississippi: 

Charleston, January 19, 1831. 

Judge Magratli and myself have sent four telegraphs to 
you. Please urge Mississippi to send delegates to the Mont- 
gomery meeting of States, at as early a day as possible — 
say 4th of February — to form imjncdiatebj a strong provis- 
ional government. It is the only thing to prevent war, and 
l<;t that convention eleclimmediately a commander-in-chief 
for the seceding States. You may as well return, at least 
as far as Montgomery. F. VV. TICKENS. 

To Hon. A. Burt Jackson. 

South Carolina has a military establishment, 
with officers ajipointed, and the taxes necessary 
to support them now are grinding her people to 
the dust; but she expects in a very short time to 
transfer that military establishment, with her offi- 
cers, to the southern confederacy that is to be es- 
tablished; and I suppose the great object in getting 
the leader appointed at once is that they may be 
able by military force to awe the people into sub- 
mission. Have we not seen that nine regiments 
have been authorized to be raised in Mississippi, 
and a distinguished Senator, who occupied a seat 
on this floor a short time since, made the major 
general.' No doubt, when the scheme is consum- 



27 



mated and carried out, when the military organi- 
zation is complete, if the people offer to resist, 
they will be subdued and awed, or driven into 
submission at the point of the bayonet. Some 
of these gentry are very much afraid of the peo- 
ple. 

Why, sir, a proposition was even started in my 
own State, to raise sixteen regiments; for what.' 
With whom are we at war? Is anybody attack- 
ing us? No. Do we want to coerce anybody? 
No. What do we want with sixteen regiments? 
And it was proposed to appropriate $250,000 to 
sustain them. There is a wonderful alarm at the 
idea of coercing the seceding States; great dread 
in reference to the power of this Federal Govern- 
ment to secure obedience to its laws, and espe- 
cially in reference to making war upon one of the 
States; but the public pro])erty can be taken, your 
flag can be fired upon, your ships driven out of 
port, yourgallant officer, with a few men, penned 
up in a little fort to subsist as best they may. So 
far as the officer to whom 1 have just alluded is 
concerned, I will give utterance to the feelings of 
my heart when I express my profound approba- 
tion of his conduct. He was put there to defend 
the flag of his country. He was there not as an 
intruder. He was there in possession of the prop- 
erty owned by the United States, not to menace, 
not to insult, not to violate rights, but simply to 
defend the flag and honor of his country, and take 
care of the public property; and because he re- 
tired from a position where he could have been 
captured, where the American flagcould have been 
struck and made to trail in the dust, and the Pal- 
metto banner substituted, because he, obeying the 
impulses of a gallant and brave heart, took choice 
of another position; acting upon principles of hu- 
manity, not injuring others, but seeking to pro- 
tect his own command from being sacrificed and 
destroyed, he is condemned and repudiated, and 
his action is sought to be converted into a menace 
of war. Has it come to this, that the Government 
of the United States cannot even take care of its 
own property, that your vessels must be fired 
upon, that yourflag must be struck, and still you 
are alarmed at coercion: and because agallant offi- 
cer has taken possession of a fort where he cannot 
very well be coerced, a terrible cry is raised, and 
war is to be made ? 

I was speaking of the proposition brought for- 
ward in my own State to raise sixteen regiments. 
Sir, as far back as the battle of King's mountain , 
and in every war in which the rights of the people 
have been invaded, Tennessee, God bless her, has 
stood by that glorious flag, which was carried by 
Washington and followed by the gallant patriots 
and soldiers of the Revolution, even as the blood 
trickled from their feet as they passed over the ice 
and snow; and under that flag, not only at home, 
but abroad, her sons have acquired honor and dis- 
tinction, in connection with citizens of the other 
States of the Union. She is not yet prepared to 
band with outlaws, and make war upon that flag 
under which she has won laurels. Whom are 
we going to fight? Who is invading Tennessee ? 
Conventions are got up; a reign of terror is inau- 
gurated; and if, by the influence of a subsidized 
and mendacious press, an ordinance taking the 



State out of the Confederacy can be extorted , those 
who make such propositions expect to have our 
army ready, to have their bands equipped, to have 
their pretorian divisions; then they will tell the 
people that they must carry the ordinance into 
effect, and join a southern confederacy, whether 
they will or not; they shall be lashed on to the car 
of South Carolina, who entertains no respect for 
them, but threatens their institution of slavery 
unless they comply with her terms. Will Ten- 
nessee take such a position as that? I cannot be- 
lieve it; I never will believe it; and if an ordinance 
of secession should be passed by that Slate under 
these circumstances, and an attempt should be 
made to force the people out of the Union, as has 
been done in some other States, without first 
having submitted that ordinance to the people for 
their ratification or rejection, I tell the Senate and 
the American people that there are many in Ten- 
nessee whose dead bodies will have to be trampled 
over beforeit can be consummated. [Applause 
in the galleries.] The Senator from Mississippi 
referred to the flag of his country; and I will read 
what he said, so that I may not be accused of mis- 
representing him: 

" It may be pardoned to me, sir, who, in my very boy- 
hood, was given to the mihtaiy service, and wiio liave fol- 
lowed that flag under tropical suns, and over northern 
snows, if I here express the deep sonow which always 
overwhelms me when I think of turning from the flag I 
have followed so long, for which I have suffered in ways it 
does not become rae to speak of; feeling that henceforth it 
is not to be the banner I will hail with Uie rising sun, and 
greet as the sun goes down ; the banner which, by day and 
by night, I am ready to follow. But God, who knows the 
hearts of men, will judge between you and us, at whose 
door lies the responsibility of this." 

There is no one in the United States who is 
more willing to do justice to the distinguished 
Senator from Mississippi than myself; and when 
1 consider his early education; when I look at his 
gallant services, finding him first in the military 
school of the United States, educated by his Gov- 
ernment, taught the .science of war at the expense 
of his country — taught to love the principles of 
the Constitution; afterwards entering its service, 
fighting beneath the stars and stripes to which he 
has so handsomely alluded, winning laurels that 
are green and imperishable, and bearing upon 
his person scars that are honorable; some of which 
have been won at home; others of which have 
been won inaforeign clime, and upon otherfields — 
I would be the last man to pluck a feather from 
his cap or a single gem from the chaplet that en- 
circles his brow. But when I consider his early 
associations; when I remember that he was nur- 
tured by this Government; that he fought for this 
Government; that he won honors under the flag 
of this Government, I cannot understand how he 
can be willing to hail another banner, and turn 
from that of his country, under which he has 
won laurels and received honors. This is a matter 
of taste, however; but it seems to me that, if I 
could not unsheath my sword in vindication of the 
flag of my country, its glorious stars and stripes, 
I would return the sword to its scabbard; I would 
never sheathe it in the bosom of my mother; 
never! never! Sir, my own feelings in reference 
to that flag are such as must have filled the heart 
of that noble son of South Carolina, Joel R. Poin- 



28 



sett, when, nearly thirty years ago, in an address I 
to the people of Charleston, he declared: ; j 

" Wherever I have been, I have been proud of being a 1 1 
citizen of this Republic, and to the remotest corners of the 1 1 
earth have walked erect and secure under tliat banner 
which our opponents would tear down and trample under ! 
foot. I was in Mexico when the town was taken by as- ! 
sault. The house of the American embassador was then, 
as it ousht to be, the refuge ofthe distressed and persecuted ; , I 
it was pointed out to the infuriated soldiery as a place filled | j 
with their enemies. They refused to attack. My onlyde- ; j 
fense was the flag of my country, and it was thrown out at ' 
the instant that hundreds of muskets were leveled at us. ; 
Mr. Mason — a braver man never stood by his friend in the I 
hour of danger — and myself placed ourselves beneath its [ 
waving folds ; and the attack was suspended. We did not ' [ 
blanch, for we felt strong in the protecting arm of this j 
mighty Republic. We told them that the flag that waved 
over us was the banner of that nation to whose example ' 
they owed their liberties, and to whose protection they '. 
were indebted for their safety. The scene changed as by 
enchantment; those men who were on the point of attack- 
ing and massacreing the inhabitants, cheered the flag of our 
country, and placed sentinels to protect it from outrage, j 

" Fellow-citizens, in such a moment as that, would it i 
have been any protection to me and mine to have pro- 
claimed myself a Carolinian .' Should I have been here to ' 
tell you this tale if I had hung out the palmetto and single ■ 
star.' Be assured that, to be respected abroad, we must 
maintain our place in the Union." 

Sir, I intend to stand by that flag, and by the ' 
Union of which it is the emblem. I agree with 
Mr. A. H. Stephens, of Georgia, " that this Gov-, 
ernment of our fathers, with all its defects, comes ] 
nearer the objects of all good governments than 
any other on the face of the earth." 

I have made allusions to the various Senators 
who have attacked me, in vindication of myself. 
I have been attacked on all hands by some five or , 
six, and maybe attacked again. All I ask is, 
that, in making these attacks, they meet my po- 
sitions, answer my argumcHts, refute my facts. 
I care not for the number that may have attacked 
me; I care not how many may come hereafter. 
Feeling that I am in the right, thatargument, that 
fact, that truth are on my side, I place them all at 
defiance. Come one, come all; for I feel, in the 
words of the great dramatic poet: 

" Thrice is he armed that hath his quarrel just ; 
And he but naked, though locked up in steel, ', 

Whose conscience with [treason] is corrupted." 

I have been told, and I have heard it repeated, I 
that this Union is gone. It has been said in this i 
Chamber that it is in the cold sweat of death; ! 
that, in fact, it is really dead, and merely lying 



in state waiting for the funeral obsequies to be 
performed. If this be so, and the war that has 
been made upon me in consequence of advocat- 
ing the Constitution and the Union is to result 
in my overthrow and in my destruction; and that 
flag, that glorious flag, the emblem of the Union, 
which was borne by Washington through a seven 
years' struggle, shall be struck from the Capitol 
and trailed in the dust — when this Union is in- 
terred, I want no more honorable winding sheet 
than that brave old flag, and no more glorious 
grave than to be interred in the tomb of the Union. 
[Applause in the galleries.] For it I have stood; 
for it I will continue to stand; I care not whence 
the blows come; and some will find, before this 
contest is over, that while there are blows to be 
given, there will be blows to receive; and that, 
while others can thrust, there are some who can 
parry. God preserve my country from the deso- 
lation that is threatening her, from treason and 
traitors ! 

" Is there not some chosen curse, 
Some hidden thunder in the stores of heaven. 
Red with uncommon wrath, to blast the man 
Who owes his greatness to his country's ruinf" 

[Applause in the galleries.] 
In conclusion, Mr. President, I make an appeal 
to the conservative men of all parties. You see 
the posture of public affairs; you see the condition 
of the country; you see along the line of battle the 
various points of conflict; you see the struggle 
which the Union men have to maintain in many 
of the States. You ought to know and feel what 
is necessary to sustain those who, in their hearts, 
desire the preservation of this Union of States. 
Will you sit with stoic indifference, and see those 
who are willing to stand by the Constitution and 
uphold the pillars of the Government driven away 
by the raging surges that are now sweeping over 
some portions of the country.' As conservative 
men, as patriots, as men who desire the preser- 
vation of this great, this good, this unparalleled 
} Government, I ask you to save the country; or 
j let the propositions be submitted to the people, 
i that the heart of the nation may respond to them. 
I I have an abiding confidence in the intelligence, 
! the patriotism, and the integrity of the great mass 
'. of the people; and I feel in my own heart that, if 
this suDJect could begot before them, they would 
settle the question, and the Union of these States 
would be preserved. [Applause in the galleries.] 



ktA 



m 






v' .•^L'* <^* 




















'bV" 







F^ ol* -tit <• 




'oK 






o^ \;*:?^«*^^^^; %;'T:?^-;/ /^^^/^tt,^*,^-^' 




".^0^ 








•"* -iV^ ^'^-♦^ '*.To' .0' 
























°o 







^^^-J- 












%'^^^'\<f V--'\<^ ^^.'^i^'-J" \--f^-r'' 













•»fev* 



V .JP'-*. -." 






.o-.-iv-.-^ .v<*.g^..\ .-»?^:k>-;s'^* «^\--*-"- 



<0^ t^l""" 






'• --^...^^ ^* 



07 "^ o 







'oK 



'^O^ 



'oK 












• •« 



:-?;* 






<> *-Tvr^ 






^'=U, 



.^^ 



A^ 



WERT 
BOOKBINDING 

Cfaniv.lle Pi 



-^ 






